Can anyone have a coat of arms?

[Douglas Smith]

I'm just curious to know if anyone can have a coat of arms or if only
people of noble birth may have one?Also,why?

Doug

[pos...@smumn.edu]

In article <34f47...@feed1.realtime.net>,

do...@bga.com (Douglas Smith) wrote:
>
> I'm just curious to know if anyone can have a coat of arms or if only
> people of noble birth may have one?Also,why?

The issues of nobility (by birth or otherwise) and having a coat of arms are
distinct. The short answer to your question is yes - it is possible to have a
coat of arms without being of noble birth (and the vast majority of armigers
would fit this description).

For more extensive information on heraldry, especially the continuation of
heraldic traditions in the United States, visit the web site of the American
College of Heraldry:

http://users.aol.com/ballywoodn/acheraldry.html

Regards,

P. O'Shea

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[Francois R. Velde]

do...@bga.com (Douglas Smith) wrote:
>I'm just curious to know if anyone can have a coat of arms or if only
>people of noble birth may have one?

Yes, outside of a largish island off the coast of Belgium, anyone can have a
coat of arms (and even in said island, coats of arms are in theory restricted,
but not to nobles).

For details, see
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/right.htm

In the US, see
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/usa/

--
Francois Velde
ve...@mcs.nospam (replace by "net")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

[John G. Deacon]

If you are a British subject you may apply to the College of Arms for arms
to be issued to you. Normally you will need to show (today) that you have
achieved something in life - they don't just hand them around.

Once issued to the family they remain in the right of use of the eldest
son,, and then on down the line.

What one may not do is bear or manifest arms that do not belong to you
simply because you have the same surname !

jgd

Douglas Smith <do...@bga.com> wrote in article
<34f47...@feed1.realtime.net>...

> I'm just curious to know if anyone can have a coat of arms or if only

> people of noble birth may have one?Also,why?
>
> Doug
>
>

[JHill92698]

>I'm just curious to know if anyone can have a coat of arms or if >onlypeople
of noble birth may have one?

In Scotland, you need to be 'virtuous and well-deserving'. No noble birth
required; but the grant will itself ennoble.

James Hill

[Olivier Marquet]

"the grant will itself ennoble"

are you sure of this ????

Olivier

JHill92698 a écrit dans le message
<19980228105...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...

[Olivier Marquet]

<<APPLAUSE>>

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote in message <31c0b31f48%t...@southfrm.demon.co.uk>...
>In message <34f4f6c...@news.mcs.net>
> ve...@mcs.nospam (Francois R. Velde) wrote:

>
>> do...@bga.com (Douglas Smith) wrote:
>> >I'm just curious to know if anyone can have a coat of arms or if only

>> >people of noble birth may have one?
>>

>> Yes, outside of a largish island off the coast of Belgium, anyone can
have a

>> coat of arms (and even in said island, coats of arms are in theory
restricted,
>> but not to nobles).
>>

>And within said offshore island I have even seens arms on a a very tired
>and run-down canal barge, which arms were not quite "orthodox" but were
>in the spirit of things. And one or two of my forebears, on the
>distaff side I hasten to add, in the last century gleefully bore arms of
>their or their ancestors design which were not "official". And rumour
>has it that no one will stop you or take you to court. So, if you like
>the look of something, particularly if you design it for yourself, why
>not use it? <duck>
>
>--
>Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@southfrm.demon.co.uk
>South Farm: (Note anti-spam in From:)
> A logical entity with a real counterpart but no address bar this.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <6dcm1g$6ba$1...@news0.skynet.be>, Olivier Marquet
<olivier...@skynet.be> writes

>"the grant will itself ennoble"
>
>are you sure of this ????

Yes...it makes you part of the "Noblesse of Scotland"...as does the
matriculating in Scotland of Irish or English arms

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Heraldic Media Ltd
Tel & Fax: +44 (0)171 794 3833
E-mail: herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk

[Francois R. Velde]

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6dcm1g$6ba$1...@news0.skynet.be>, Olivier Marquet
><olivier...@skynet.be> writes
>>"the grant will itself ennoble"
>>
>>are you sure of this ????
>
>Yes...it makes you part of the "Noblesse of Scotland"...as does the
>matriculating in Scotland of Irish or English arms

<irony alert>
English is a funny language, you see. A "chevalier" is much less than a
"knight", but to be part of the "noblesse" is pretty much the same thing as to
be part of the "nobility".
</irony alert>

Legally, the nobility in Britain consists of holders of peerage. It is a very
different concept from Continental nobility. Some people consider that
"nobility" can also be taken to mean a wider group of people, for example the
gentry; and they equate the British gentry with continental untitled nobility.
Some people also say that the "noblesse of Scotland" is really the "nobility" of
Scotland, although they can't exactly explain why the Scots need a French word
when they have a perfectly good one at hand. For those people, a grant or
matriculation by Lord Lyon ennobles.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <34fa48d3...@news.mcs.net>, "Francois R. Velde"
<ve...@mcs.nospam> writes

>Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <6dcm1g$6ba$1...@news0.skynet.be>, Olivier Marquet
>><olivier...@skynet.be> writes
>>>"the grant will itself ennoble"
>>>
>>>are you sure of this ????
>>
>>Yes...it makes you part of the "Noblesse of Scotland"...as does the
>>matriculating in Scotland of Irish or English arms
>
><irony alert>
>English is a funny language, you see. A "chevalier" is much less than a
>"knight", but to be part of the "noblesse" is pretty much the same thing as to
>be part of the "nobility".
></irony alert>

Francois...I appreciate you're trying to be clever (the word "snide"
actually springs to mind...but let's be charitable) here, but by using
the term "Noblesse of Scotland" I was actually quoting (note the " "
symbols!) from the wording of a Scottish grant of arms where the
appropriate wording id something along the lines of "....and let him be
taken in all places and at all times as a member of the Noblesse of
Scotland". Remember that these are the Lord Lyon's words, not mine!

>
>Legally, the nobility in Britain consists of holders of peerage.

Not strictly true. First of all, you can't really talk about "nobility
in Britain". You need to talk about "nobility in England" or "nobility
in Scotland" because the concept of nobility is different in the two
countries.

I would agree entirely with Francois that in England the only "nobles"
are the actual holders of peerage titles and their wives (it is a very
moot point whether their eldest son and/or heir can be included in ths
category). Everyone else, including younger sons, are commoners.

In Scotland, matters are different in that there is in addition to the
peerage (ie the Lords of Parliament) a distinct body of people that form
the Baronage (in England a baron is the lowest rank of the peerage, in
Scotland barons are not part of the peerage at all - the Scottish
equivalent to a baron is a lord). That members of this "feudal"
baronage are "noble" is part of Scottish law.

The Lord Lyon has stated quite clearly that the possession of a coat of
arms is an heritable noble fief similar to a feudal barony.

> It is a very
>different concept from Continental nobility.

In England but NOT in Scotland - I find the Scottish system very similar
to those on the Continent.

> Some people consider that
>"nobility" can also be taken to mean a wider group of people, for example the
>gentry; and they equate the British gentry with continental untitled nobility.

There have been several interesting arguments about this - let's say
that the jury is out on this one!

>Some people also say that the "noblesse of Scotland" is really the "nobility" of
>Scotland, although they can't exactly explain why the Scots need a French word
>when they have a perfectly good one at hand.

"Some people" here is actually the Lord Lyon King of Arms in the wording
of the grants of arms he issues- and you can't really have a higher
Scottish authority on the matter, can you?

> For those people, a grant or
>matriculation by Lord Lyon ennobles.

I really think Francois is trying to be sarcastic here (and getting at
me at the same time!) - it is not a matter of what I think or of what
you think or of what "some people" think....it is what the Lord Lyon
thinks on the matter that counts.

>
>--
> Francois Velde
> ve...@mcs.nospam (replace by "net")
> Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan

[Francois R. Velde]

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <34fa48d3...@news.mcs.net>, "Francois R. Velde"
><ve...@mcs.nospam> writes
>>Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <6dcm1g$6ba$1...@news0.skynet.be>, Olivier Marquet
>>><olivier...@skynet.be> writes
>>>>"the grant will itself ennoble"
>>>>
>>>>are you sure of this ????
>>>
>>>Yes...it makes you part of the "Noblesse of Scotland"...as does the
>>>matriculating in Scotland of Irish or English arms
>>
>><irony alert>
>>English is a funny language, you see. A "chevalier" is much less than a
>>"knight", but to be part of the "noblesse" is pretty much the same thing as to
>>be part of the "nobility".
>></irony alert>
>
>Francois...I appreciate you're trying to be clever (the word "snide"
>actually springs to mind...but let's be charitable) here, but by using
>the term "Noblesse of Scotland" I was actually quoting (note the " "
>symbols!) from the wording of a Scottish grant of arms where the
>appropriate wording id something along the lines of "....and let him be
>taken in all places and at all times as a member of the Noblesse of
>Scotland". Remember that these are the Lord Lyon's words, not mine!

But the claim that the "chevalier" means less than knight, but "noblesse" means
the same thing as nobility, is yours. That's what I was making fun of.

>>Legally, the nobility in Britain consists of holders of peerage.
>
>Not strictly true. First of all, you can't really talk about "nobility
>in Britain". You need to talk about "nobility in England" or "nobility
>in Scotland" because the concept of nobility is different in the two
>countries.
>
>I would agree entirely with Francois that in England the only "nobles"
>are the actual holders of peerage titles and their wives (it is a very
>moot point whether their eldest son and/or heir can be included in ths
>category). Everyone else, including younger sons, are commoners.
>
>In Scotland, matters are different in that there is in addition to the
>peerage (ie the Lords of Parliament) a distinct body of people that form
>the Baronage (in England a baron is the lowest rank of the peerage, in
>Scotland barons are not part of the peerage at all - the Scottish
>equivalent to a baron is a lord). That members of this "feudal"
>baronage are "noble" is part of Scottish law.

Correction noted; but the principle is the same in both countries, it seems, in
that only holders of titles are nobles; the class of titles is simply broader in
Scotland.

>The Lord Lyon has stated quite clearly that the possession of a coat of
>arms is an heritable noble fief similar to a feudal barony.

It can't really be. There's only one feudal barony, held by one person at a
time. One person's possession of a coat of arms is concurrent with many others'
simultaneous possession, suitably differenced. Put in other words: a grant of
arms to someone entitles all his male descendants to matriculation and hence to
"noblesse"; but a holder of a feudal barony cannot see all his descendants
become barons and hence nobility. A coat and a barony are thus different
animals.

>> It is a very
>>different concept from Continental nobility.
>
>In England but NOT in Scotland - I find the Scottish system very similar
>to those on the Continent.

Not at all! Nowhere in Europe was a king of arms ever allowed to ennoble at
will. Ennoblement was always the prerogative of the sovereign, while the grant
of arms was often delegated to a king of arms as in Scotland.

Remember that the continental nobility was a privileged class, enjoying (among
other things) tax exemptions. The king was not about to hand out to an officer
the power to exempt people from taxes (or that officer would soon become rich,
and the king poor!).

>> Some people consider that
>>"nobility" can also be taken to mean a wider group of people, for example the
>>gentry; and they equate the British gentry with continental untitled nobility.
>
>There have been several interesting arguments about this - let's say
>that the jury is out on this one!

I'll leave it at that.

>>Some people also say that the "noblesse of Scotland" is really the "nobility" of
>>Scotland, although they can't exactly explain why the Scots need a French word
>>when they have a perfectly good one at hand.
>
>"Some people" here is actually the Lord Lyon King of Arms in the wording
>of the grants of arms he issues- and you can't really have a higher
>Scottish authority on the matter, can you?

I must be missing something. The wording you quoted above from a grant by Lord
Lyon does not say that "noblesse" is the same thing as "nobility", does it?

>> For those people, a grant or
>>matriculation by Lord Lyon ennobles.
>
>I really think Francois is trying to be sarcastic here (and getting at
>me at the same time!) - it is not a matter of what I think or of what
>you think or of what "some people" think....it is what the Lord Lyon
>thinks on the matter that counts.

But why does he think in French? If he thinks he has the power to ennoble, why
doesn't he say so in plain English?

I'm not disputing that Lord Lyon makes people enter into the "noblesse" at his
pleasure. I'm wondering what that word means.

[Richard Carruthers]

Noblesse is used, I suspect, as part of the legacy of the strong bond that
existed between France and Scotland, referred to as the 'Auld Alliance'.
--
Richard H.B.Carruthers(-Zurowski), B.A.(Hons), Oxon. cw...@freenet.carleton.ca
34a, Acacia Avenue, Rockcliffe Park, Ontario K1M 0P4, CANADA (613) 749-3825.
paternal seize-quartiers: Zurowski, Sanocki, Karst, Puetz, Bayerle, Hoffmann,
Schroeder, Zettel, Fahlmann, Doppermann, Frei, -, Ehmann, -, Reilaender, -.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <34feabbf...@news.mcs.net>, "Francois R. Velde"

Who mentioned "chevalier"? Nobless=nobility is a statement by the Lord
Lyon

>
>>>Legally, the nobility in Britain consists of holders of peerage.
>>
>>Not strictly true. First of all, you can't really talk about "nobility
>>in Britain". You need to talk about "nobility in England" or "nobility
>>in Scotland" because the concept of nobility is different in the two
>>countries.
>>
>>I would agree entirely with Francois that in England the only "nobles"
>>are the actual holders of peerage titles and their wives (it is a very
>>moot point whether their eldest son and/or heir can be included in ths
>>category). Everyone else, including younger sons, are commoners.
>>
>>In Scotland, matters are different in that there is in addition to the
>>peerage (ie the Lords of Parliament) a distinct body of people that form
>>the Baronage (in England a baron is the lowest rank of the peerage, in
>>Scotland barons are not part of the peerage at all - the Scottish
>>equivalent to a baron is a lord). That members of this "feudal"
>>baronage are "noble" is part of Scottish law.
>
>Correction noted; but the principle is the same in both countries, it seems, in
>that only holders of titles are nobles; the class of titles is simply broader in
>Scotland.

Not in Scotland...every son can matriculate a version of his father's
arms and confirm his nobility

>
>>The Lord Lyon has stated quite clearly that the possession of a coat of
>>arms is an heritable noble fief similar to a feudal barony.
>
>It can't really be. There's only one feudal barony, held by one person at a
>time. One person's possession of a coat of arms is concurrent with many others'
>simultaneous possession, suitably differenced. Put in other words: a grant of
>arms to someone entitles all his male descendants to matriculation and hence to
>"noblesse"; but a holder of a feudal barony cannot see all his descendants
>become barons and hence nobility. A coat and a barony are thus different
>animals.

Not at all....a feudal baron can grant a younger son a fief out of the
baronial holding and in the same way a younger son matriculates out of
the armigerous holding of the family (See Innes of Learney, Scots
Heraldry)

>
>>> It is a very
>>>different concept from Continental nobility.
>>
>>In England but NOT in Scotland - I find the Scottish system very similar
>>to those on the Continent.
>
>Not at all! Nowhere in Europe was a king of arms ever allowed to ennoble at
>will. Ennoblement was always the prerogative of the sovereign, while the grant
>of arms was often delegated to a king of arms as in Scotland.

I refer you to Innes of Learney and Gayre who both go into depth o nthis
matter (it is 3:01 in the morning here and I MUST get to bed!)

>
>Remember that the continental nobility was a privileged class, enjoying (among
>other things) tax exemptions. The king was not about to hand out to an officer
>the power to exempt people from taxes (or that officer would soon become rich,
>and the king poor!).

Agreed...but that doesn't mean that nobility can *ONLY* be a privileged
class enjoying tax exemptions, as you seem to be implying.

>
>>> Some people consider that
>>>"nobility" can also be taken to mean a wider group of people, for example the
>>>gentry; and they equate the British gentry with continental untitled nobility.
>>
>>There have been several interesting arguments about this - let's say
>>that the jury is out on this one!
>
>I'll leave it at that.
>
>>>Some people also say that the "noblesse of Scotland" is really the "nobility"
>of
>>>Scotland, although they can't exactly explain why the Scots need a French word
>>>when they have a perfectly good one at hand.
>>
>>"Some people" here is actually the Lord Lyon King of Arms in the wording
>>of the grants of arms he issues- and you can't really have a higher
>>Scottish authority on the matter, can you?
>
>I must be missing something. The wording you quoted above from a grant by Lord
>Lyon does not say that "noblesse" is the same thing as "nobility", does it?

Dough!!! Doesn't "noblesse" in French mean "nobility".....?????

>
>>> For those people, a grant or
>>>matriculation by Lord Lyon ennobles.
>>
>>I really think Francois is trying to be sarcastic here (and getting at
>>me at the same time!) - it is not a matter of what I think or of what
>>you think or of what "some people" think....it is what the Lord Lyon
>>thinks on the matter that counts.
>
>But why does he think in French? If he thinks he has the power to ennoble, why
>doesn't he say so in plain English?

Just in the same way that we refer to a certain cut of meat as a "filet"
rather than use the word "steak" or use other French words in our
everyday speech.

>
>I'm not disputing that Lord Lyon makes people enter into the "noblesse" at his
>pleasure. I'm wondering what that word means.

Why should it have any other meaning than its obvious one (basic rule of
legal interpretation - go for the simple meaning!!!)

[james_algrant]

In article <XnJAODAZUM$0E...@londwill.demon.co.uk>, Patrick says...

I DON'T KNOW WHY I'M GETTING IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS BUT PLEASE ALLOW ME TO ADD MY
TWO CENTS' WORTH. A GRANT BY LORD LYON, INDEED ADMITS ONE TO "THE NOBLESSE OF
SCOTLAND". A MATRICULATION OF ARMS, HOWEVER, DOES NOT. THUS, SOMEONE COMING
TO SEEK TO MATRICULATE SELF-ASSUMED SPANISH ARMS "CERTIFIED" BY THE
CRONISTA DE ARMAS BY SO DOING IS NOT ADMITTED TO THE "NOBLESSE" OF SCOTLAND AND
NOWHERE IN HIS MATRICULATION IS THERE ANY MENTION OF BEING ADMITTED THEREIN.
PLEASE BELIEVE ME, I PERSONALLY DID JUST THAT ABOUT THIRTY YEARS AGO.
FURTHER, I HAVE CORRESPONDENCE
FROM LORD LYON CONFIRMING WHAT I HAVE JUST STATED.

James Algrant
pa...@ime.net
"All men are equal; it is not birth but virtue which makes the difference."
Voltaire

[Francois R. Velde]

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Who mentioned "chevalier"? Nobless=nobility is a statement by the Lord
>Lyon

You yourself wrote, on November 3 last, that a "chevalier" was not the same as a
"knight", although knight is the English translation of chevalier. Thus, the
fact that nobility is the translation of "noblesse" does not imply that they are
always one and the same when the word "noblesse" is used in English.

The question is, what is this "noblesse" which the Lord Lyon has authority to
bestow at will. Is there any legal reference where the word is defined? After
all, Lord Lyon derives his authority to grant arms from statute.

So I look at the statute in question (Charles II cap. 47, the Lyon King of Arms
Act of 1672), and look for any such authority to create nobles. I not find it,
I only see that Lord Lyon is empowered to "give Armes to vertuous and well
deserving Persones", not to make noblemen. Furthermore, I find language which
clearly shows that noblemen, barons and gentlemen are *three distinct
categories*, contrary to your assertions, and that not all grantees are
noblemen.

The full text is on my Web site at
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/lordlyon.htm

So I am still left wondering.

>Not in Scotland...every son can matriculate a version of his father's
>arms and confirm his nobility

James Algrant states that a matriculation in Scotland makes no mention
whatsoever of noblesse. Do you disagree? Furthermore, the brief excerpt that
you cited from a grant of arms only mentioned the grantee as being entered in
the noblesse of Scotland. Is that "noblesse" a hereditary body? Are all male
descendants of the grantee members of the noblesse, and which text says so, if
the grant doesn't?

>>Not at all! Nowhere in Europe was a king of arms ever allowed to ennoble at
>>will. Ennoblement was always the prerogative of the sovereign, while the grant
>>of arms was often delegated to a king of arms as in Scotland.
>
>I refer you to Innes of Learney and Gayre who both go into depth o nthis
>matter (it is 3:01 in the morning here and I MUST get to bed!)

Innes of Learney and Gayre are no authority on Continental nobility. I defy you
to show me a country outside of Scotland where ennoblement was left to the
pleasure of an officer, without any control or involvement of the sovereign.

>>Remember that the continental nobility was a privileged class, enjoying (among
>>other things) tax exemptions. The king was not about to hand out to an officer
>>the power to exempt people from taxes (or that officer would soon become rich,
>>and the king poor!).
>
>Agreed...but that doesn't mean that nobility can *ONLY* be a privileged
>class enjoying tax exemptions, as you seem to be implying.

What I imply is correct on the Continent. If Scotland has defined the term
"nobility" otherwise, so be it, but everyone must be clear that the meaning of
the word is very different from the continental meaning, just as the meaning of
the word "nobility" in England (restricted to title-holders) is very different.

>>>"Some people" here is actually the Lord Lyon King of Arms in the wording
>>>of the grants of arms he issues- and you can't really have a higher
>>>Scottish authority on the matter, can you?
>>
>>I must be missing something. The wording you quoted above from a grant by Lord
>>Lyon does not say that "noblesse" is the same thing as "nobility", does it?
>
>Dough!!! Doesn't "noblesse" in French mean "nobility".....?????

In French, yes. I don't know what it means in Scots Law.

>>>> For those people, a grant or
>>>>matriculation by Lord Lyon ennobles.
>>>
>>>I really think Francois is trying to be sarcastic here (and getting at
>>>me at the same time!) - it is not a matter of what I think or of what
>>>you think or of what "some people" think....it is what the Lord Lyon
>>>thinks on the matter that counts.
>>
>>But why does he think in French? If he thinks he has the power to ennoble, why
>>doesn't he say so in plain English?
>
>Just in the same way that we refer to a certain cut of meat as a "filet"
>rather than use the word "steak" or use other French words in our
>everyday speech.

Because there is no English word for that particular cut.

>>I'm not disputing that Lord Lyon makes people enter into the "noblesse" at his
>>pleasure. I'm wondering what that word means.
>
>Why should it have any other meaning than its obvious one (basic rule of
>legal interpretation - go for the simple meaning!!!)

Another basic rule: if two words are used, they probably have different
meanings. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "noblesse" is
principally used when referring to the French nobility, or out of litterary
affectation. The grant of Lord Lyon, however, refers to "the noblesse of
Scotland" of which one is a member (at least in the version you gave; I
appreciate that you did this from memory, but I don't have Innes of Learney at
hand to collate).

This suggests the possibility that the word "noblesse" has a distinct meaning
here. Even if that meaning is "Scottish nobility" (which I'm quite prepared to
believe), I'd like to know what defines the Scottish nobility and its
characteristics (beyond the useless tautological definition that Scottish
nobility consists of those who have received a grant of arms!).

[Barry Gabriel]

Francois R. Velde wrote:

[snip]

> >>Nowhere in Europe was a king of arms ever allowed to ennoble at
> >>will. Ennoblement was always the prerogative of the sovereign, while the grant
> >>of arms was often delegated to a king of arms as in Scotland.
> >
> >I refer you to Innes of Learney and Gayre who both go into depth o nthis
> >matter (it is 3:01 in the morning here and I MUST get to bed!)
>
> Innes of Learney and Gayre are no authority on Continental nobility. I defy you
> to show me a country outside of Scotland where ennoblement was left to the
> pleasure of an officer, without any control or involvement of the sovereign.

I have to put 2 cents in here. My understanding of this is that Lord
Lyon does not *confer* nobility with a grant of arms, but more or less
*confirms* a certain noble status because of either the grantees
achievements, standing in society, descent from an armiger, etc.

[snip]

> >>Lyon does not say that "noblesse" is the same thing as "nobility", does it?

If I recall (and I really don't want to get embroiled in this particular
argument), Innes' term was "petit noblesse", which he equated with the
English gentry.
> >
[snip]

it is what the Lord Lyon
> >>>thinks on the matter that counts.
> >>
> >>But why does he think in French? If he thinks he has the power to ennoble, why
> >>doesn't he say so in plain English?

It's in as plain English as a Scotsman can manage (sorry...I couldn't
resist):-)
[snip]

> This suggests the possibility that the word "noblesse" has a distinct meaning
> here. Even if that meaning is "Scottish nobility" (which I'm quite prepared to
> believe), I'd like to know what defines the Scottish nobility and its
> characteristics (beyond the useless tautological definition that Scottish
> nobility consists of those who have received a grant of arms!).

In Scotland, that seems to be all it takes...but keep in mind it is
"petit noblesse".

B.G.

[Francois R. Velde]

Barry Gabriel <bgab...@uccb.ns.ca> wrote:
>I have to put 2 cents in here. My understanding of this is that Lord
>Lyon does not *confer* nobility with a grant of arms, but more or less
>*confirms* a certain noble status because of either the grantees
>achievements, standing in society, descent from an armiger, etc.
>
>[snip]

>> >>Lyon does not say that "noblesse" is the same thing as "nobility", does it?
>

>If I recall (and I really don't want to get embroiled in this particular
>argument), Innes' term was "petit noblesse", which he equated with the
>English gentry.

> [...]

>> This suggests the possibility that the word "noblesse" has a distinct meaning
>> here. Even if that meaning is "Scottish nobility" (which I'm quite prepared to
>> believe), I'd like to know what defines the Scottish nobility and its
>> characteristics (beyond the useless tautological definition that Scottish
>> nobility consists of those who have received a grant of arms!).
>

>In Scotland, that seems to be all it takes...but keep in mind it is
>"petit noblesse".

Your interpretation makes the use of the term "petite noblesse" similar to the
use of the concept of gentry with respect to grants of arms in England. A grant
of arms in England does not confer gentle status, it recognizes it. Gentry is
distinct from nobility. It is considered a hereditary status, like that of
armiger. Being armiger is evidence of gentle status. Etc.

If "petite noblesse"=Scottish equivalent of the English gentry, then I have no
difficulty understanding the concept and its relation to armigerous status.

[guy_stair_sainty]

In article <34ff2e24...@news.mcs.net>, ve...@mcs.nospam says...

>
>Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Who mentioned "chevalier"? Nobless=nobility is a statement by the Lord
>>Lyon
>
>

>The question is, what is this "noblesse" which the Lord Lyon has authority to
>bestow at will. Is there any legal reference where the word is defined? After
>all, Lord Lyon derives his authority to grant arms from statute.
>
>So I look at the statute in question (Charles II cap. 47, the Lyon King of Arms
>Act of 1672), and look for any such authority to create nobles. I not find it,
>I only see that Lord Lyon is empowered to "give Armes to vertuous and well
>deserving Persones", not to make noblemen. Furthermore, I find language which
>clearly shows that noblemen, barons and gentlemen are *three distinct
>categories*, contrary to your assertions, and that not all grantees are
>noblemen.
>

I made this point a year or so ago, and challenged the assertion that
(a) matriculations (I have one and it says nothing about nobility), and
(b) a new grant (how can an officer of the Crown create nobles) creates
any nobles.

This concept seems to have been invented by Innes of Learney. My "Heraldry
in Scotland" 2 vols says nothing of this, and divides Scottish
armigers into noblemen and gentlemen, ignoring a second status for
barons since the barons (although they do have certain heraldic
privileges and, by repute, privileges of precedence - although such
are not defined in law) have no legal jurisdiction or functions
today as they did when the Lord Lyon's office was first defined in
law.

>James Algrant states that a matriculation in Scotland makes no mention
>whatsoever of noblesse. Do you disagree? Furthermore, the brief excerpt that
>you cited from a grant of arms only mentioned the grantee as being entered in
>the noblesse of Scotland. Is that "noblesse" a hereditary body? Are all male
>descendants of the grantee members of the noblesse, and which text says so, if
>the grant doesn't?

Again, I believe this form of words to have been introduced on regular
basis only by Innes of Learney. I would be interested to see some patents
from between, say, 1850 and 1920 to determine whether new grants automatically
made this statement concerning noblesse, or if they included them in
any patents of grants to mere gentlemen.

>
>>>Not at all! Nowhere in Europe was a king of arms ever allowed to ennoble at
>>>will. Ennoblement was always the prerogative of the sovereign, while the grant
>>>of arms was often delegated to a king of arms as in Scotland.
>>
>>I refer you to Innes of Learney and Gayre who both go into depth o nthis
>>matter (it is 3:01 in the morning here and I MUST get to bed!)

With the greatest respectg to these two (now deceased) gentlemen, they
had a direct interest in the matter. An offcier of arms, like any officer
of the Crown or state, does not define his/her own functions - these
are defined by law, by their patent of appointment, or by some other
royal, sovereign or parliamentary act or charter.

Guy Stair Sainty

[Bryan J. Maloney]

According to traditional European usages dating to time immemorial,
anyone who assumes arms has arms. The idea of regulating them in the
way that Garter or Lyons does is of fairly recent vintage.

In the USA, since neither Garter nor Lyons has any jurisdiction, arms
may be assumed with impunity.

Bryan Maloney

Or. (At least for this week.)

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <6djk83$3...@drn.newsguy.com>, James Algrant <?@?.?> writes

[snip]

>I DON'T KNOW WHY I'M GETTING IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS BUT PLEASE ALLOW ME TO ADD MY
>TWO CENTS' WORTH. A GRANT BY LORD LYON, INDEED ADMITS ONE TO "THE NOBLESSE OF
>SCOTLAND". A MATRICULATION OF ARMS, HOWEVER, DOES NOT.

With respect, James, you are wrong here. A matriculation of arms in
Scotland is not a de novo grant. It is the matriculation of existing
arms which by the Scottish definition are ab initio of a noble nature.

No matriculation, whether of Scottish arms or non-Scottish ones, makes
any mention of the "matriculatee" becoming a member of the "Noblesse of
Scotland" because being the descendant of a grantee (whether Scottish or
otherwise) he must by definition under Scots Law be noble anyway.

> THUS, SOMEONE COMING
>TO SEEK TO MATRICULATE SELF-ASSUMED SPANISH ARMS "CERTIFIED" BY THE
>CRONISTA DE ARMAS

From the last conversation I had woth the Lord Lyon on this matter I was
under the understanding that he would NOT matriculate these so-called
grants from the Chronistas de Armas.

> BY SO DOING IS NOT ADMITTED TO THE "NOBLESSE" OF SCOTLAND AND
>NOWHERE IN HIS MATRICULATION IS THERE ANY MENTION OF BEING ADMITTED THEREIN.
>PLEASE BELIEVE ME, I PERSONALLY DID JUST THAT ABOUT THIRTY YEARS AGO.
> FURTHER, I HAVE CORRESPONDENCE
>FROM LORD LYON CONFIRMING WHAT I HAVE JUST STATED.

Well, James, I have it from the current Lord Lyon that as far as he is
concerned an English or Irish grantee who matriculates arms in Scotland
is to be regarded as standing equally with a person who had a de novo
Scottish grant.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <34ff2e24...@news.mcs.net>, "Francois R. Velde"
<ve...@mcs.nospam> writes

>Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Who mentioned "chevalier"? Nobless=nobility is a statement by the Lord
>>Lyon
>
>You yourself wrote, on November 3 last, that a "chevalier" was not the same as a
>"knight", although knight is the English translation of chevalier. Thus, the
>fact that nobility is the translation of "noblesse" does not imply that they are
>always one and the same when the word "noblesse" is used in English.

The argument there was NOT equating chevalier with knight as such but
equating the holding of the fifth grade of a Continental Order of
Chivalry with the holding of the first or second grades of a British
Order of Chivalry, ie. a Chevalier of the Legion of Honour is roughly of
equal standing with a Member of the Order of the British Empire but not
with a Knight Commander of the same order.

>
>The question is, what is this "noblesse" which the Lord Lyon has authority to
>bestow at will. Is there any legal reference where the word is defined? After
>all, Lord Lyon derives his authority to grant arms from statute.
>
>So I look at the statute in question (Charles II cap. 47, the Lyon King of Arms
>Act of 1672), and look for any such authority to create nobles. I not find it,
>I only see that Lord Lyon is empowered to "give Armes to vertuous and well
>deserving Persones", not to make noblemen.

If I can quote Thomas Innes of Learney, Scots Heraldry, 1978 ed, p.45:

"Both the Lord Lyon's Commission and the Statute 1672 expressly
authorise him to grant arms to "virtuous and well deserving persons" who
are "in all places of honour and worshipe among other noblemen to be
renouned reputed taken and accepted by shewing certayn ensignes and
demonstrations of honour and noblesse", (Bell, 26 June 1542, J Dallaway,
Heraldic Inquiries, p.172) ie persons deserving of being raised to the
nobility and who, in virtue of the grant of arms, become the root of a
"noble stok" as described in 1592, cap.125, established as a family
organised in "stem" and "branches" as a noble community." (Kinghorn of
Auchinhove, LR xxxiv, 64; Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland, 1942-3, p.169)

I would strongly urge you to read the whole of this chapter "A Scottish
Grant of Arms" before making any further comments on this subject!

> Furthermore, I find language which
>clearly shows that noblemen, barons and gentlemen are *three distinct
>categories*, contrary to your assertions, and that not all grantees are
>noblemen.
>
>The full text is on my Web site at
>http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/lordlyon.htm
>
>So I am still left wondering.
>
>>Not in Scotland...every son can matriculate a version of his father's
>>arms and confirm his nobility
>
>James Algrant states that a matriculation in Scotland makes no mention
>whatsoever of noblesse. Do you disagree?

Yes, as I've posted seperately, I do disagree.

> Furthermore, the brief excerpt that
>you cited from a grant of arms only mentioned the grantee as being entered in
>the noblesse of Scotland. Is that "noblesse" a hereditary body?

The "Noblesse of Scotland" is not a club or association as you seem to
be suggesting....it's a class.

> Are all male
>descendants of the grantee members of the noblesse, and which text says so, if
>the grant doesn't?

Why should there be any text?

>

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <34feb5e4...@news.mcs.net>, "Francois R. Velde"
<ve...@mcs.nospam> writes

>Barry Gabriel <bgab...@uccb.ns.ca> wrote:
>>I have to put 2 cents in here. My understanding of this is that Lord
>>Lyon does not *confer* nobility with a grant of arms, but more or less
>>*confirms* a certain noble status because of either the grantees
>>achievements, standing in society, descent from an armiger, etc.
>>
>>[snip]

>>> >>Lyon does not say that "noblesse" is the same thing as "nobility", does it?
>>

>>If I recall (and I really don't want to get embroiled in this particular
>>argument), Innes' term was "petit noblesse", which he equated with the
>>English gentry.
>> [...]

>>> This suggests the possibility that the word "noblesse" has a distinct meaning
>>> here. Even if that meaning is "Scottish nobility" (which I'm quite prepared
>to
>>> believe), I'd like to know what defines the Scottish nobility and its
>>> characteristics (beyond the useless tautological definition that Scottish
>>> nobility consists of those who have received a grant of arms!).
>>

>>In Scotland, that seems to be all it takes...but keep in mind it is
>>"petit noblesse".
>
>Your interpretation makes the use of the term "petite noblesse" similar to the
>use of the concept of gentry with respect to grants of arms in England. A grant
>of arms in England does not confer gentle status, it recognizes it. Gentry is
>distinct from nobility. It is considered a hereditary status, like that of
>armiger. Being armiger is evidence of gentle status. Etc.
>
>If "petite noblesse"=Scottish equivalent of the English gentry, then I have no
>difficulty understanding the concept and its relation to armigerous status.

Like most people I really don't want to become embroiled in a tedious
argument with the learned Francois....I just suggest that anyone who is
interested in the subject read "Scots Heraldry" by the late Sir Thomas
Innes of Learney (try the shortened 1978 edition!) which is the
definitive last word on Scots heraldry!

[Barry Gabriel]

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan wrote:

> Well, James, I have it from the current Lord Lyon that as far as he is
> concerned an English or Irish grantee who matriculates arms in > Scotland is to be regarded as standing equally with a person who had a > de novo Scottish grant.

Would this also apply to a Canadian Grant, or for that matter a South
African grant?

B.G.

[Francois R. Velde]

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <34ff2e24...@news.mcs.net>, "Francois R. Velde"
><ve...@mcs.nospam> writes

>>The question is, what is this "noblesse" which the Lord Lyon has authority to
>>bestow at will. Is there any legal reference where the word is defined? After
>>all, Lord Lyon derives his authority to grant arms from statute.
>>
>>So I look at the statute in question (Charles II cap. 47, the Lyon King of Arms
>>Act of 1672), and look for any such authority to create nobles. I not find it,
>>I only see that Lord Lyon is empowered to "give Armes to vertuous and well
>>deserving Persones", not to make noblemen.
>
>If I can quote Thomas Innes of Learney, Scots Heraldry, 1978 ed, p.45:
>
>"Both the Lord Lyon's Commission and the Statute 1672 expressly
>authorise him to grant arms to "virtuous and well deserving persons" who
>are "in all places of honour and worshipe among other noblemen to be
>renouned reputed taken and accepted by shewing certayn ensignes and
>demonstrations of honour and noblesse", (Bell, 26 June 1542, J Dallaway,
>Heraldic Inquiries, p.172) ie persons deserving of being raised to the
>nobility and who, in virtue of the grant of arms, become the root of a
>"noble stok" as described in 1592, cap.125, established as a family
>organised in "stem" and "branches" as a noble community." (Kinghorn of
>Auchinhove, LR xxxiv, 64; Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
>Scotland, 1942-3, p.169)

Patrick, I placed the full text of the statute of 1672 on my Web site, I gave
you the URL. You can look up yourself the text and you will see that the phrase
"virtuous and well deserving persons" is indeed in it, but the phrase "in all
places [...] and noblesse" is not. Innes of Learney cites secondary sources, I
cite the actual statute. When Innes of Learney asserts that the Statute of 1672
"expressly" authorises him, he is pasting together two fragments from two
separate texts and passing them off as a single text.

I know your total disregard for primary sources and your fondness for taking
refuge behind "authorities". You demonstrated both when we discussed the style
of "king of Great Britain": it took you weeks to admit the plain truth.

But, once more, I am not the only one being obtuse. Guy Sainty argues cogently
that it is not up to Lord Lyon to define his functions. I, too, would like to
see texts of grants from the 18th and 19th c. to find out when the phrase
"noblesse of Scotland" was inserted. The authority to make nobles is not in the
statute of 1672, if only you bothered to read it.

(I know you won't, and will merely say: "Innes of Learny is the final word!
Innes of Learney is the final word!").

>I would strongly urge you to read the whole of this chapter "A Scottish
>Grant of Arms" before making any further comments on this subject!

And I would strongly urge you to read the Statute of 1672.

>>James Algrant states that a matriculation in Scotland makes no mention
>>whatsoever of noblesse. Do you disagree?
>
>Yes, as I've posted seperately, I do disagree.

No, you admit that matriculations make no reference to noblesse. But you assert
that, since noblesse is hereditary, there is no need to mention it. You do not
say why noblesse is hereditary. You assert that it is so "under Scots Law" but
provide no statutory or legal reference.

>> Are all male
>>descendants of the grantee members of the noblesse, and which text says so, if
>>the grant doesn't?
>
>Why should there be any text?

Because you assert that it is so "under Scots Law". You're trained in law, so
you know that you need to provide references for your claim.

[Michael F. McCartney]

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>From the last conversation I had woth the Lord Lyon on this matter I was
>under the understanding that he would NOT matriculate these so-called
>grants from the Chronistas de Armas.

his appears to be a recent change--how long ago was this conversation?--since
there are at least a few rec.heraldry readers/lurkers who did use the Cronista
as their doorman at the port of Scottish genility. I would assume (but am
asking) that those who "made it" into the Lyon Register based on a Spanish
certification in the past, will remain there? Or has the current Lyon hinted
at a retroactive effect & an armorial purge? (and would he then refund the
cover charges? ah, there's the rub!)

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <34ff40e...@news.mcs.net>, "Francois R. Velde"

<ve...@mcs.nospam> writes
>Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <34ff2e24...@news.mcs.net>, "Francois R. Velde"
>><ve...@mcs.nospam> writes

>>>The question is, what is this "noblesse" which the Lord Lyon has authority to
>>>bestow at will. Is there any legal reference where the word is defined?
>After
>>>all, Lord Lyon derives his authority to grant arms from statute.
>>>
>>>So I look at the statute in question (Charles II cap. 47, the Lyon King of
>Arms
>>>Act of 1672), and look for any such authority to create nobles. I not find
>it,
>>>I only see that Lord Lyon is empowered to "give Armes to vertuous and well
>>>deserving Persones", not to make noblemen.
>>
>>If I can quote Thomas Innes of Learney, Scots Heraldry, 1978 ed, p.45:
>>
>>"Both the Lord Lyon's Commission and the Statute 1672 expressly
>>authorise him to grant arms to "virtuous and well deserving persons" who
>>are "in all places of honour and worshipe among other noblemen to be
>>renouned reputed taken and accepted by shewing certayn ensignes and
>>demonstrations of honour and noblesse", (Bell, 26 June 1542, J Dallaway,
>>Heraldic Inquiries, p.172) ie persons deserving of being raised to the
>>nobility and who, in virtue of the grant of arms, become the root of a
>>"noble stok" as described in 1592, cap.125, established as a family
>>organised in "stem" and "branches" as a noble community." (Kinghorn of
>>Auchinhove, LR xxxiv, 64; Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
>>Scotland, 1942-3, p.169)
>

>Patrick, I placed the full text of the statute of 1672 on my Web site, I gave
>you the URL. You can look up yourself the text and you will see that the phrase
>"virtuous and well deserving persons" is indeed in it, but the phrase "in all
>places [...] and noblesse" is not.

I am aware of that.

> Innes of Learney cites secondary sources, I
>cite the actual statute. When Innes of Learney asserts that the Statute of 1672
>"expressly" authorises him, he is pasting together two fragments from two
>separate texts and passing them off as a single text.

Innes of Learney also has the text of the Statute of 1672 in "Scots
Heraldry" and I think it is fairly obvious from the footnote that
"virtuous and well deserving persons" is from the Statute and "in all
places of honour....." is from Dallaway.

>
>I know your total disregard for primary sources

I don't disregard primary sources....I just don't have the luxury of
having the time available to spend an afternoon going to a library to
look up something. I HAVE to rely on the secondary sources I have to
hand.

> and your fondness for taking
>refuge behind "authorities". You demonstrated both when we discussed the style
>of "king of Great Britain": it took you weeks to admit the plain truth.

What?

>
>But, once more, I am not the only one being obtuse. Guy Sainty argues cogently
>that it is not up to Lord Lyon to define his functions. I, too, would like to
>see texts of grants from the 18th and 19th c. to find out when the phrase
>"noblesse of Scotland" was inserted.

You must be mad! How an earth can you expect someone to traipse off to
Edinburgh to look for some 18th and 19th century grants? If you're so
keen to score points, then you go and look for them. And good luck to
you!

> The authority to make nobles is not in the
>statute of 1672, if only you bothered to read it.

Cheeky beggar! I have read it many times - and you will note that at no
time have I said "The 1672 Statute gives Lord Lyon the power to enoble".

By the way...you have read the *1592 Statute* as well, haven't you......

>
>(I know you won't, and will merely say: "Innes of Learny is the final word!
>Innes of Learney is the final word!").
>

>>I would strongly urge you to read the whole of this chapter "A Scottish
>>Grant of Arms" before making any further comments on this subject!
>

>And I would strongly urge you to read the Statute of 1672.

Which I had done before I made the posting......

>
>>>James Algrant states that a matriculation in Scotland makes no mention
>>>whatsoever of noblesse. Do you disagree?
>>
>>Yes, as I've posted seperately, I do disagree.
>

>No, you admit that matriculations make no reference to noblesse.

> But you assert
>that, since noblesse is hereditary, there is no need to mention it. You do not
>say why noblesse is hereditary. You assert that it is so "under Scots Law" but
>provide no statutory or legal reference.
>

>>> Are all male
>>>descendants of the grantee members of the noblesse, and which text says so, if
>>>the grant doesn't?
>>
>>Why should there be any text?
>

>Because you assert that it is so "under Scots Law". You're trained in law, so
>you know that you need to provide references for your claim.

As in many of our arguments we are coming up against the same lack of
understanding on your part of certain aspects of English (and Scots!)
law.

You come from a country with a highly structured but newly created legal
system where everything is highly structured and where with all rights
of jurisdiction or entitlement to do things are based on statute and
evidenced in writing.

That is just not the case in this country. To give an example, there is
no Statute that lays down just what the Earl Marshal of England can do
or cannot do.....his rights are based on tradition and general
acceptance. Thankfully, there was the 1672 Declaration which set out
the wide extent of his powers - but even if there had not been such a
declaration, the legal maxim of "omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta"
would apply - in otherwords, you can safely assume that someone is
acting in accordance with the law unless it is proved to the contrary.

And so it is with the Lord Lyon. By virtue of his office, he exercises
the full heraldic authority of the Crown in Scotland. He is more than
just a paid official - when he speaks on heraldic matters he speaks with
the voice of the Crown. If Lord Lyon Innes of Learney says " a grant of
arms confers nobility" then that IS the case ("by his own mere will and
motion", as it were!) and you don't need to look for statutory support
because the Lord Lyon, like the Earl Marshal in England, can create
within his competance law by himself without reference to a Court or to
Parliament or to a Statute.

With respect, what you should be looking at is the question not if the
Lord Lyon can say that the grant of a coat of arms can create a noble
(as, quite self evidently, he has and does say this) but whether the
subject of "nobility" falls within the jurisdiction of the Lord Lyon
King of Arms.

Incidentally, as in England, the Law of Arms in Scotland seems to have
been that arms are evidence of "noble stok" and of "noble lineage" - the
1592 Act was inter alia to ensure that arms should continue to be
insignia indicating this.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <6doc5v$ck_...@jack.sns.com>, "Michael F. McCartney"
<m...@sns.com> writes

>Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>From the last conversation I had woth the Lord Lyon on this matter I was
>>under the understanding that he would NOT matriculate these so-called
>>grants from the Chronistas de Armas.
>
>his appears to be a recent change--how long ago was this conversation?

Last year, after the lecture he gave to The Heraldry Society.

>--since
>there are at least a few rec.heraldry readers/lurkers who did use the Cronista
>as their doorman at the port of Scottish genility. I would assume (but am
>asking) that those who "made it" into the Lyon Register based on a Spanish
>certification in the past, will remain there?

I would assume so - although I am personally surprised that the Lord
Lyon would even consider allowing the matriculation of arms included in
the Cronista's certificates.

> Or has the current Lyon hinted
>at a retroactive effect & an armorial purge?

Not in the slightest

> (and would he then refund the
>cover charges? ah, there's the rub!)
>

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan

[guy_stair_sainty]

In article <j3JNKjAm...@londwill.demon.co.uk>, Patrick says...

>
>
>As in many of our arguments we are coming up against the same lack of
>understanding on your part of certain aspects of English (and Scots!)
>law.
>
>You come from a country with a highly structured but newly created legal
>system where everything is highly structured and where with all rights
>of jurisdiction or entitlement to do things are based on statute and
>evidenced in writing.

Are you talking about the US? If so, you are certainly mistaken. The laws
that governed the colonies like England were a mixture of statue and
common law, and English common law before 1776 remains part of the
body of lawa of the United States and, on occasion, may be cited today.
Indeed, even modern English cases are sometimes cited, even if they
are only considered "authority" rather than definitive.

>
>That is just not the case in this country. To give an example, there is
>no Statute that lays down just what the Earl Marshal of England can do
>or cannot do.....his rights are based on tradition and general
>acceptance.

i.e. his rights are established in common law. This is not a strange
concept. In fact, even in France, certain presidential powers under
the 5th republic are mere continuations of earlier powers and are
not restated in full; furthermore, it is also incorrect to state
that all French law (if this criticism of Francois is based on his
being French) is defined by statute.

>Thankfully, there was the 1672 Declaration which set out
>the wide extent of his powers - but even if there had not been such a
>declaration, the legal maxim of "omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta"
>would apply - in otherwords, you can safely assume that someone is
>acting in accordance with the law unless it is proved to the contrary.
>
>And so it is with the Lord Lyon. By virtue of his office, he exercises
>the full heraldic authority of the Crown in Scotland. He is more than
>just a paid official - when he speaks on heraldic matters he speaks with
>the voice of the Crown. If Lord Lyon Innes of Learney says " a grant of
>arms confers nobility" then that IS the case ("by his own mere will and
>motion", as it were!) and you don't need to look for statutory support
>because the Lord Lyon, like the Earl Marshal in England, can create
>within his competance law by himself without reference to a Court or to
>Parliament or to a Statute.

I dispute that the "full heraldic authority" of the Crown automatically
includes defining the state of the nobility - this would certainly be
resisted by the House of Lords committee for privileges which, as far
as I know, has not conceded its powers to any herald. My Heraldry in
Scotland by Stevenson does not say that grants of arms confer nobility?
He was a considerable authority, why does he not make this claim?

GSS

[BREDALBANE]

Just having arms is an honor. Why worry if confers nobility. Arms give the
recipiant a disticntion that few have anyway.

[Francois R. Velde]

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Innes of Learney also has the text of the Statute of 1672 in "Scots
>Heraldry" and I think it is fairly obvious from the footnote that
>"virtuous and well deserving persons" is from the Statute and "in all
>places of honour....." is from Dallaway.

The syntax certainly does not make it obvious. Innes of Learney's sentence
reads: "Both A and B expressly state that "X" and "Y"." Reading this, one must
assume that both quotes "X" and "Y" are in sources A and B. A is the statute,
and we know that "X" is in it, but not "Y". B is the Commission. But all of
this is condensed so as to lead one to think that the Statute mentions nobility.

>>But, once more, I am not the only one being obtuse. Guy Sainty argues cogently
>>that it is not up to Lord Lyon to define his functions. I, too, would like to
>>see texts of grants from the 18th and 19th c. to find out when the phrase
>>"noblesse of Scotland" was inserted.
>
>You must be mad! How an earth can you expect someone to traipse off to
>Edinburgh to look for some 18th and 19th century grants? If you're so
>keen to score points, then you go and look for them. And good luck to
>you!

We have Scottish readers on this newsgroup, who may be interested in the
question, and may have an idle hour to spend at some point in the future. Or
texts of grants might be published in other sources on Scottish heraldry. I've
expressed a desire to see something, nothing more. But if grants of arms grant
nobility, one would expect that remarkable, indeed unique feature, to be
discussed in other treatments of the topic.

>By the way...you have read the *1592 Statute* as well, haven't you......

No. I will look it up, in due time. But please, do not prolong the suspense.
Does the 1592 statute tell us that Lord Lyon can grant nobility?

In the meantime, I notice an excerpt from the act of 1592 in A. Wagner's
"Heralds and Heraldry", namely: "full power and commission to Lyoun king of
armes and his brether herauldis to visit the haill armes of noblemen baronis and
gentlemen borne and usit within this realme". I therefore see the same
distinction between noblemen, barons and gentlemen which is in the statute of
1672, not quite in line with your statements.

>>And I would strongly urge you to read the Statute of 1672.
>
>Which I had done before I made the posting......

So how do you explain that statute's distinction between noblemen, barons and
gentlemen in the statutes of 1592 and 1672?.....

>>>> Are all male
>>>>descendants of the grantee members of the noblesse, and which text says so, if
>>>>the grant doesn't?
>>>
>>>Why should there be any text?
>>
>>Because you assert that it is so "under Scots Law". You're trained in law, so
>>you know that you need to provide references for your claim.
>
>As in many of our arguments we are coming up against the same lack of
>understanding on your part of certain aspects of English (and Scots!)
>law.

I'm willing to learn.

>You come from a country with a highly structured but newly created legal
>system where everything is highly structured and where with all rights
>of jurisdiction or entitlement to do things are based on statute and
>evidenced in writing.

If you are thinking of France, that is not quite true. In fact, most of the law
concerning heraldry and titles of nobility is at present founded on case law,
not statute.

However, I do think that statements about common law have to be backed up by
something (court cases, judgments, legal treatises, evidence of longstanding
custom). Am I mistaken?

>And so it is with the Lord Lyon. By virtue of his office, he exercises
>the full heraldic authority of the Crown in Scotland.

Yes, as defined in the statute of 1672. Does he have powers not defined by
statute? In other words, what other examples are there of powers based on
common law?

>He is more than
>just a paid official - when he speaks on heraldic matters he speaks with
>the voice of the Crown. If Lord Lyon Innes of Learney says " a grant of
>arms confers nobility" then that IS the case ("by his own mere will and
>motion", as it were!) and you don't need to look for statutory support
>because the Lord Lyon, like the Earl Marshal in England, can create
>within his competance law by himself without reference to a Court or to
>Parliament or to a Statute.

"Within his competence". Who or what defines his competence?

>With respect, what you should be looking at is the question not if the
>Lord Lyon can say that the grant of a coat of arms can create a noble
>(as, quite self evidently, he has and does say this) but whether the
>subject of "nobility" falls within the jurisdiction of the Lord Lyon
>King of Arms.

It seems to me that's precisely what I've been asking since the beginning. I
looked at the statute and did not find it even mentioned. If it is based on
"tradition and general acceptance" that the Lyon king of arms can grant
nobility, then we should find trace of it in the literature, and not just in one
book written by one Lord Lyon. For example, Sir James Balfour Paul's
introduction to his Ordinary (1903), or George Seton's _Law and Practice of
Heraldry in Scotland_ (Edinburgh, 1863), or Alexander Nisbet's System of
Heraldry (Edinburgh, 1816). It is certainly puzzling that John Stevenson's
Heraldry in Scotland (1914), probably the most complete book on the subject,
does not mention it at all, wouldn't you say?

At this point, all I know is that Lord Lyon says he grants "noblesse", but I
have no idea what that is. It certainly doesn't translate into nobility in the
continental sense, and not into nobility in the English sense. It doesn't
correspond to the concept of nobility in the 1592 and 1672 statutes either.
Some further research is warranted.

>Incidentally, as in England, the Law of Arms in Scotland seems to have
>been that arms are evidence of "noble stok" and of "noble lineage" - the
>1592 Act was inter alia to ensure that arms should continue to be
>insignia indicating this.

How do you explain the 1592 and 1672 statutes clear distinction between
noblemen, barons and gentlemen?

[Barry Gabriel]

Francois R. Velde wrote:
>
> Barry Gabriel <bgab...@uccb.ns.ca> wrote:
> >I have to put 2 cents in here. My understanding of this is that Lord
> >Lyon does not *confer* nobility with a grant of arms, but more or less
> >*confirms* a certain noble status because of either the grantees
> >achievements, standing in society, descent from an armiger, etc.
> >
> >[snip]

> >In Scotland, that seems to be all it takes...but keep in mind it is
> >"petit noblesse".
>
> Your interpretation makes the use of the term "petite noblesse" similar to the
> use of the concept of gentry with respect to grants of arms in England. A grant
> of arms in England does not confer gentle status, it recognizes it. Gentry is
> distinct from nobility. It is considered a hereditary status, like that of
> armiger. Being armiger is evidence of gentle status. Etc.
>
> If "petite noblesse"=Scottish equivalent of the English gentry, then I have no
> difficulty understanding the concept and its relation to armigerous status.

That is precisely how I see it. I always understood the application of
petit noblesse to be gentry (whatever that means) and not what we
generally understand as nobility. B.G.

[Barry Gabriel]

We've gone over this argument many times before. First of all, arms in
general are of recent vintage, not just their regulation. Second, just
because they were not regulated in "time immemorial" does not mean they
shouldn't be regulated now. Would you drive a car without a license?
The fact you can assume arms willy nilly in the U.S. is unfortunate.
You really should have an heraldic authority. Lyon and Garter do have
some jurisdiction in the U.S. The former with individuals of proven
Scottish descent on the male line, the latter with proven descent from a
British subject.

B.G.

[Elias Granqvist]

Barry Gabriel <bgab...@uccb.ns.ca> wrote:

>You really should have an heraldic authority.

I agree. If not else, so to see to that the rules of heraldry are
followed, so that not so much quasi-heraldry will be displayed. It's
ugly!

Elias

[R. Massey]

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan wrote:
>
> In article <6doc5v$ck_...@jack.sns.com>, "Michael F. McCartney"

> <m...@sns.com> writes

> >Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>From the last conversation I had woth the Lord Lyon on this matter I was
> >>under the understanding that he would NOT matriculate these so-called
> >>grants from the Chronistas de Armas.
> >
> >his appears to be a recent change--how long ago was this conversation?
>
> Last year, after the lecture he gave to The Heraldry Society.
>
> >--since
> >there are at least a few rec.heraldry readers/lurkers who did use the Cronista
> >as their doorman at the port of Scottish genility. I would assume (but am
> >asking) that those who "made it" into the Lyon Register based on a Spanish
> >certification in the past, will remain there?
>
> I would assume so - although I am personally surprised that the Lord
> Lyon would even consider allowing the matriculation of arms included in
> the Cronista's certificates.
>
> > Or has the current Lyon hinted
> >at a retroactive effect & an armorial purge?
>
> Not in the slightest
>
> > (and would he then refund the
> >cover charges? ah, there's the rub!)
> >
>

> Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
> Heraldic Media Ltd
> Tel & Fax: +44 (0)171 794 3833
> E-mail: herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk

I certainly am glad Patrick has cleared this up. I would hate to have
to roll my armorial ensign in a tube and send it back. Perhaps the Lord
Lyon doesn't ask Patrick's opinion on all of his matriculations. Would
it be safe to say that there are situations that don't have a set rule.

The Lord Lyon would seem to be as a judge in the U.S. being correct
until overruled by a higher court. Would that not fit the C of A?

While we're in this area, what are the qualifications to receive a grant
in Ireland? I believe they are quite liberal.

Wishing all well and going back to my wee cave,

Randal

[Bryan J. Maloney]

BREDALBANE wrote:
>
> Just having arms is an honor. Why worry if confers nobility. Arms give the
> recipiant a disticntion that few have anyway.

And in America, anybody can have arms merely by assuming them.

[Bryan J. Maloney]

Barry Gabriel wrote:

> We've gone over this argument many times before. First of all, arms in
> general are of recent vintage, not just their regulation. Second, just

Arms are at least a couple centuries older than their regulation.

> shouldn't be regulated now. Would you drive a car without a license?

Now that has *got* to be, without a doubt, the stupidest, most
lame-brained, utterly no-alpha-wave-readout pseudo-argument I've seen so
far on this issue.

The licensing of automobile operation has to do with the fact that
automobiles are HEAVY MACHINERY and that people can and do get killed
operating them--with frightening frequency. There is currently no
heraldic regulation in the USA, and the amount of fatalities from
unlicensed heraldry in this country appear to be vanishingly tiny
compared to the fatalities sustained even under licensed motor vehicle
operation.

> You really should have an heraldic authority. Lyon and Garter do have
> some jurisdiction in the U.S. The former with individuals of proven

Really? Can you cite the portion of the US Constitution, US Code, or US
court decision that grants them this jurisdiction. Your sun set on our
bit of your little "empire" before it set anywhere else--remember that.

Heraldry is an amusing little preoccupation, I will grant that, but it
oughtn't be given too much import in the modern era.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <6duqhf$k...@drn.newsguy.com>, Guy Stair Sainty <?@?.?> writes

[snip]

>>Thankfully, there was the 1672 Declaration which set out
>>the wide extent of his powers - but even if there had not been such a
>>declaration, the legal maxim of "omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta"
>>would apply - in otherwords, you can safely assume that someone is
>>acting in accordance with the law unless it is proved to the contrary.
>>
>>And so it is with the Lord Lyon. By virtue of his office, he exercises
>>the full heraldic authority of the Crown in Scotland. He is more than
>>just a paid official - when he speaks on heraldic matters he speaks with
>>the voice of the Crown. If Lord Lyon Innes of Learney says " a grant of
>>arms confers nobility" then that IS the case ("by his own mere will and
>>motion", as it were!) and you don't need to look for statutory support
>>because the Lord Lyon, like the Earl Marshal in England, can create
>>within his competance law by himself without reference to a Court or to
>>Parliament or to a Statute.
>

>I dispute that the "full heraldic authority" of the Crown automatically
>includes defining the state of the nobility - this would certainly be
>resisted by the House of Lords committee for privileges which, as far
>as I know, has not conceded its powers to any herald.

Guy, we are talking here about the Scottish "concept" of nobility not
whether someone has a right to a peerage or not.

The Committee for Privileges is the ultimate authority within the United
Kingdom as to whom can and cannot be summoned to Parliament as a
peer....but as far as I know they have never claimed the right to define
who can and cannot be noble under Scots Law.

For example, there is no dispute that a Scottish feudal baron is "noble"
- but the determination and regulation of such feudal barons does not
fall within the competance of the Committee for Privileges but in fact
falls within the competance of the Lord Lyon.

> My Heraldry in
>Scotland by Stevenson does not say that grants of arms confer nobility?
>He was a considerable authority, why does he not make this claim?

A considerable authority perhaps.....but not the ultimate authority in
Scotland on these matters, ie the Lord Lyon King of Arms.

Perhaps you should ask Mr Stevenson why he did not mention this fact.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <35036bc6...@news.mcs.net>, "Francois R. Velde"
<ve...@mcs.nospam> writes

>Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Innes of Learney also has the text of the Statute of 1672 in "Scots
>>Heraldry" and I think it is fairly obvious from the footnote that
>>"virtuous and well deserving persons" is from the Statute and "in all
>>places of honour....." is from Dallaway.
>
>The syntax certainly does not make it obvious. Innes of Learney's sentence
>reads: "Both A and B expressly state that "X" and "Y"." Reading this, one must
>assume that both quotes "X" and "Y" are in sources A and B. A is the statute,
>and we know that "X" is in it, but not "Y". B is the Commission. But all of
>this is condensed so as to lead one to think that the Statute mentions nobility.

Well, it was quite clear to me...but them I am used to reading legal
documents ;-)

>
>>>But, once more, I am not the only one being obtuse. Guy Sainty argues
>cogently
>>>that it is not up to Lord Lyon to define his functions. I, too, would like to
>>>see texts of grants from the 18th and 19th c. to find out when the phrase
>>>"noblesse of Scotland" was inserted.
>>
>>You must be mad! How an earth can you expect someone to traipse off to
>>Edinburgh to look for some 18th and 19th century grants? If you're so
>>keen to score points, then you go and look for them. And good luck to
>>you!
>
>We have Scottish readers on this newsgroup, who may be interested in the
>question, and may have an idle hour to spend at some point in the future. Or
>texts of grants might be published in other sources on Scottish heraldry. I've
>expressed a desire to see something, nothing more. But if grants of arms grant
>nobility, one would expect that remarkable, indeed unique feature, to be
>discussed in other treatments of the topic.

I think it might be easier if I write the LL himself on the subject!

As far as I'm aware you live in the USA.....the most litigious country
in the world.

> In fact, most of the law
>concerning heraldry and titles of nobility is at present founded on case law,
>not statute.
>
>However, I do think that statements about common law have to be backed up by
>something (court cases, judgments, legal treatises, evidence of longstanding
>custom). Am I mistaken?
>
>>And so it is with the Lord Lyon. By virtue of his office, he exercises
>>the full heraldic authority of the Crown in Scotland.
>
>Yes, as defined in the statute of 1672. Does he have powers not defined by
>statute? In other words, what other examples are there of powers based on
>common law?

To quote Innes of Learney again:

A coat of arms is the outward indication of nobility (6), and arms are
officially described as 'Ensigns of Nobility'(7). A patent of arms is -
and I say this with full official weight - a Diploma of Nobility (8),
and as such both the Scottish and English Kings of Arms have treated
their patents, issued by then as Royal Commissioners. Since the power
to enoble is vested in the Crown (9), armorial bearings very soon became
subject to strict regulations. There were also practical reasons for
this, namely, to prevent disputes in civil life and confusion in the
field of battle; to these we should add fraud in connection with legal
sealing of documents, and proofs of pedigree in succession to estates
and dignities. A coat of arms, like a peerage, baronetcy, or right to
salmon-fishing, became a recognised form of 'incorporeal heritable
property'(10), the of granting which is 'a part of the Royal
Prerogative'(11), and the Court of Session has laid down, per Lord
Robertson(12), that infringement of a right to arms 'involves a question
of property, which a right to bear particular ensigns armorial
undoubtedly is', and that the Scottish Courts must in such cases give
redress(15). Nowadays, this may seem strange, but in Scotland a right
of any sort, be it of 'nobility' only, or be it a peerage or other
'honour', has always been considered a 'right' to which one must have
proper 'title deeds', and over which one can have a 'guid gangin' plea'
before Court of Law, shouldthere be any cause for dispute(14).

The same principle reconciles an apparent nomily, viz: if all clansmen
are 'noble', how comes it that anybody requires to be enobled? The
juridicial Scottish mind instantly answers that 'nobility' - like any
other right - must be proved, and if for any reasomn a descent from some
armigerous ancestor cannot be judicially proved(15), then the Crown must
'intervene by some formal act', such as a patent from Lyon, usually
granted unless the applicant be 'undeserving'. Arms once validly
acquired, like other property 'held of' the Crown, 'become as much a
person's property as anything else he possesses'(16), though indeed they
are very 'strictly entailed estate', which he cannot assign or dispose
of, except under the strictest procedure(17). In Scotland this
exclusive 'right of property' in armorial bearings is a serious legal
fact.

When we say that arms are 'property' yet 'tokens of nobility', it is
necessary to point out that in most ancient realms the concept of
nobility has been related to the tenure of 'noble terre' and that arms
themselves are regarded as incorporeal 'fiefs annoblissants'. Much of
the interest of Scottish heraldry lies in the fact that the law and
practice of arms in Scotland are living and functioning survivals of old
feudo-tribal laws of honour as applied to 'Earldoms, Baronies and other
impartible tenures' as these existed in the eleventh to seventeenth
centuries. Lyon Court and the Armorial Noblesse of Scotland are thus a
living survival of the old mediaeval realm, and accordingly of immense
legal and social interest, perpetuating as they do the organistion and
concepts of the old clan or family organisation of the kingdom.

(6) Edmondson, Complete Book of Heraldry, p.154; Statute 1592, cap.
125; Acts, iii, 554; A C Fox-Davies, Right to Bear Arms, p.34; Privy
Council, 2nd ser.iii, 594; Sir J Balfour, Heraldic Tracts, 'On
Nobility', p.9, No. 37; Nisbet, System of Heraldry, iii, ii, 68,
'insigne verum nobilitatis'.

(7) Nisbet's Heraldy, iii, ii, 65; Juridicial Review lii, p. 198

(8) Ibid, p.218, n.2; J Woodward and Burnett, Heraldry British and
Foreign, 1896 ed pp.11-15

(9) The old Earls of Scotland who were Righ or provincial Kings 'by the
Grace of God' (Scots Peerage, iv, 6) had provincial nobles and baronages
of their own (W C Dickinson, Court Book of Carnwath, xvi, li);
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland lxxxix, 156

(10) Right to Bear Arms, p.26; Mr Justice Chitty in Austen v Collins
(The Times, 6 May 1886), but cf. JT, lii, pp.184-6, 195-6; and Lord
Aitchison in Maclean of Ardgour, 1941 Session Cases, p.683

(11) Macdonell v Macdonald, 1826, 4 Shaw & Dunlop 371; Edmondson,
Complete Body of Heraldry, i, 155

(12) Macdonell v Macdonald, supra

(13) Commented on and approved in House of Lords by Lord Shaw of
Dunfermline, Stewart-Mackenzie v Fraser-Mackenzie, 1922 Session Cases
(House of Lords), 39, at pp. 46 and 47

(14) Encyclopedia of the Laws of Scotland, xi, par. 417, 434; Innes of
Learney, Law of Succession in Ensigns Armorial, p. 3 n

(15) Balfour's Heraldic Tracts, 'On Nobility', No 116

(16) Per Lyon-Depute Boswell, Lyon Office Record book, p. 183

(17) Grant of Auchernack, 31 December 1777, Lyon Register, i, 515;
Register of All Genealogies and Birthbrieves in Scotland, i, 229;
Steuart of Allanton, 1813; Lyon Register, ii, 101; Macneil of Barra,
1915, ibid, xxii, 160; Scottish Notes & Queries, 1933, p. 187;
Rintoul, 1950, Scots Law Times, 12; Haig, ibid, 26

[BREDALBANE]

Help me out here! I believe one can be "noble" , but not a "peer". Peers may
sit in the House of Lords. The lesser nobility are not peers. Knights are of
the lesser nobility and can be in the Commons. I do not know if "baronets" can
be in the commons(they are considered lesser nobility, but their title is
hereditary). Will someone clear this up for me?
Thanks, BREDA...@aol.com

[Barry Gabriel]

Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
> BREDALBANE wrote:
[snip]

> > recipiant a disticntion that few have anyway.
>
> And in America, anybody can have arms merely by assuming them.

A pity.

B.G.

[Elias Granqvist]

"Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:

>Heraldry is an amusing little preoccupation, I will grant that, but it
>oughtn't be given too much import in the modern era.

Why not?

Why shouldn't arms have legal protection, just as other kinds of
intellectual property (such as patents, copyright and trademarks - of
which the last mentioned of course has a lot in common with heraldic
devices)???!!!!

Elias Granqvist

[Francois R. Velde]

It is really not necessary to for you to post whole pages out of Innes of
Learney. I will look into this further myself, and in particular check the
footnotes where I can. Reading through this quote, however, I am inclined to be
suspicious of the authority of the whole, since some parts are clearly
incorrect:

>A patent of arms is -
>and I say this with full official weight - a Diploma of Nobility (8),
>and as such both the Scottish and English Kings of Arms have treated
>their patents, issued by then as Royal Commissioners.

You know as well as I that, in England, a grant of arms is not a diploma of
nobility. At most it is the recognition that someone has attained the status of
gentleman, which is not the same as nobility (in England or in Scotland).

>in most ancient realms the concept of
>nobility has been related to the tenure of 'noble terre' and that arms
>themselves are regarded as incorporeal 'fiefs annoblissants'.

I wonder what "ancient realms" those could possibly be. Nowhere else have arms
conferred nobility of themselves, since (in most places) arms have always been
acquired by self-assumption. I have never seen anywhere a description of arms
as a form of fief; such a description would be absurd since arms, to be like
fiefs, would have to be granted, and the first grants of arms date from two
hundred years after the birth of heraldry. Fiefs annoblissants, as a side-note,
were a rarity after the 14th c. in France (they subsisted in Bearn, Soule,
Bigorre and Navarre).

Finally, since Innes of Learney says that "the power to enoble is vested in the
Crown", one would like to know when and how that power was vested by the Crown
in Lord Lyon. Innes of Learney does not answer in that particular passage.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 22:49:56 +0000, Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>To quote Innes of Learney again:

>A coat of arms is the outward indication of nobility (6), and arms are
>officially described as 'Ensigns of Nobility'(7). A patent of arms is -
>and I say this with full official weight - a Diploma of Nobility (8),
>and as such both the Scottish and English Kings of Arms have treated
>their patents, issued by then as Royal Commissioners. Since the power
>to enoble is vested in the Crown (9), armorial bearings very soon became
>subject to strict regulations.

It seems odd to pass over several centuries with the words 'very
soon'.

Brian M. Scott

[Michael F. McCartney]

breda...@aol.com (BREDALBANE) wrote:
>Just having arms is an honor. Why worry if confers nobility.

>Arms give the recipiant a disticntion that few have anyway.

Counsel is arguing a fact not yet in evidence...

[Michael F. McCartney]

>Bryan J. Maloney wrote: [snip]

>>In the USA, since neither Garter nor Lyons has any jurisdiction, arms
>>may be assumed with impunity. Bryan Maloney Or.(At least for this week.)

Barry Gabriel replied:
>... Would you drive a car without a license?

Yes, if I lived in a jurisdiction that didn't bother to issue licenses or
otherwise regulate drivers.

>The fact you can assume arms willy nilly in the U.S. is unfortunate.

>You really should have an heraldic authority. Lyon and Garter do have
>some jurisdiction in the U.S. The former with individuals of proven

>Scottish descent on the male line, the latter with proven descent from a
>British subject. >B.G.

Beg pardon? You might as well say that the US has "jurisdiction" in Canada
because a Canadian can buy or inherit property in the US!! All that either
Lyon or Garter can (or AFAIK ever have) claimed is that, if an American should
desire to display or use arms IN BRITAIN, he should (in England) or must (in
Scotland) observe the local laws or rules or customs. American private
citizens may (or may not) choose to accord some moral deference to arms
granted by LL & G (I would) but if this meant accepting a claim of legal
"jurisdiction" we'd dump the letters patent in the harbor along with the tea.
Neither LL or G has AFAIK ever been so undiplomatic!

[Michael F. McCartney]

In article <35096e45...@news.mcs.net>,
ve...@mcs.nospam (Francois R. Velde) wrote:
>...since Innes of Learney says that "the power to enoble is vested in the

>Crown", one would like to know when and how that power was vested by the
>Crown in Lord Lyon. Innes of Learney does not answer in that particular
>passage.

The logical places to look, it would seem to me, would be (1) the actual text
of the letters patent creating (if that's the right word - appointing?) the
Lord Lyon - preferably both a recent one (Innes father and/or son), and one or
more old ones - maybe 19th century & then as early as can be found verbatim;
and (2) the actual text (full text, not extracts) of patents of arms under the
Innesses, and several of their predecessors, including the oldest available.
I was under the impression (but only from reading Innes) that the cases cited
in his footnotes referred to actual grants issued by early Lyons, but can't
confirm. These documants should, at a minimum, show whether Innes was merely
following existing precedent--and what that precedent was--or making up new
stuff. Also, if (repeat if) both old and new patents actually contain the
words Innes quotes about being taken and accepted as a noble in the noblesse
of Scotland or whatever the magic words, and if this wording has been accepted
(not suppressed) over the centuries, then it would be logical to assume that
it reflected the accepted historical view re: the significance of arms in
Scotland. Obviously a lot of "ifs" but without the evidence, one has nothing
on which to base a conclusion other than Innes' writings.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <19980311043...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, BREDALBANE
<breda...@aol.com> writes

It all depends which country you are talking about....

In England only the holder of a peerage and his wife is noble (peeresses
in their own right do not transfer their nobility to their
husbands!)....their children rank as commoners as do baronets, knights,
Lords of the Manor, armigerous gentlemen, etc, etc.

In Scotland nobility is enjoyed by a far wider group...essentially it is
all those (be they younger sons of peers, baronets, knights, feudal
barons, or even gentlemen of coat armour) who have been granted arms by
or who have matriculated arms with the Lord Lyon (it is not usual for
eldest sons to matriculate arms as they inherit their father's
armigerous estate)....obviously a newly ennobled peer who had not
established his right to arms in one way or another would still be a
noble in Scottish eyes.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <35096e45...@news.mcs.net>, "Francois R. Velde"
<ve...@mcs.nospam> writes

>It is really not necessary to for you to post whole pages out of Innes of
>Learney.

Well...you don't seem to want to listen to my arguments so I thought I'd
go back to the horse's mouth, as it were....I'll just be the humble go-
between!!! And in any case, YOU might have a copy of Scots Heraldry to
hand but a lot of the readers would not - I was thinking of them, my
dear Francois, not your goodself :-)

> I will look into this further myself, and in particular check the
>footnotes where I can. Reading through this quote, however, I am inclined to be
>suspicious of the authority of the whole, since some parts are clearly
>incorrect:

Methinks you tend to be suspicious of anything that doesn't conform 100%
with your view of what should be - a tendancy that seems to afflict a
goodly proportion of our North American correspondants.

>>A patent of arms is -
>>and I say this with full official weight - a Diploma of Nobility (8),
>>and as such both the Scottish and English Kings of Arms have treated
>>their patents, issued by then as Royal Commissioners.
>

>You know as well as I that, in England, a grant of arms is not a diploma of
>nobility. At most it is the recognition that someone has attained the status of
>gentleman, which is not the same as nobility (in England or in Scotland).

You know as well as I that it is a very moot point whether an English
grant of arms is a diploma of nobility or not. There are strong
arguments both for and against the contention and the late Lord Lyon is
perfectly entitled to come down on one side or the other of the
argument.

You have to remember that from a Scottish perspective a grant of arms
from the British Sovereign is as much a diploma of nobility as one
issued in Scotland.

Also the phrase "I say this with full official weight" is very
important....this is not mere words but a definitive statement of the
Law of Arms in Scotland by a Minister of the Crown. Whatever
uncertainties had existed before, from the moment Lord Lyon Innes of
Learney wrote those words the Law of Arms in Scotland was that a coat of
arms was a Diploma of Nobility.

>
>>in most ancient realms the concept of
>>nobility has been related to the tenure of 'noble terre' and that arms
>>themselves are regarded as incorporeal 'fiefs annoblissants'.
>

>I wonder what "ancient realms" those could possibly be. Nowhere else have arms
>conferred nobility of themselves, since (in most places) arms have always been
>acquired by self-assumption. I have never seen anywhere a description of arms
>as a form of fief; such a description would be absurd since arms, to be like
>fiefs, would have to be granted, and the first grants of arms date from two
>hundred years after the birth of heraldry. Fiefs annoblissants, as a side-note,
>were a rarity after the 14th c. in France (they subsisted in Bearn, Soule,
>Bigorre and Navarre).

You're missing the point here, Francois. Both in England and Scotland
holding land off the King, whether directly as a tenant-in-chief or
indirectly as a tenant or sub-tenant of a tenant-in-chief was the
earliest form of "nobility" (the concept of nobility by office came much
later). In both England and Scotland the right to a coat of arms is in
law a form of real estate (described as "an incorporeal heridatament")
as much as 300 rolling acres of finest farmland. In Scotland this point
is taken a step further to say that a coat of arms is either granted de
novo or confirmed as being inherited from the past (ie in the form of
matriculated arms) by the Crown and as such is a fief held off the Crown
(because is is real estate and ultimately all real estate belongs to the
Crown) and therefore the person holding this fief is noble.

>
>Finally, since Innes of Learney says that "the power to enoble is vested in the

>Crown", one would like to know when and how that power was vested by the Crown
>in Lord Lyon. Innes of Learney does not answer in that particular passage.

Francois, dear chap, you're not thinking this through.

1. The Crown can ennoble by granting corporeal or incorporeal fiefs.

2. Like all Kings of Arms the Lord Lyon has the delegated authority of
the Crown to grant arms.

3. In Scotland a coat of arms is an incorporeal fief held off the
Crown.

4. Because it is a fief held off the Crown the holder is ennobled.

5. Therefore a grant of arms in Scotland ennobles the holder.

It really is a waste of time to ask "when and how this power was vested
by the Crown in Lord Lyon" as it has probably been accepted since the
time of the origination of the office of Lord Lyon that this has been
so.

Furthermore the very fact that the Crown has not refuted or denied that
what Lord Lyon Innes of Learney is true does tend to imply that the
Crown concurs with the statement of law expressed by him.

I think what might be interesting is if someone has available the rubric
of the medieval ceremonial of inaugurating and crowning the Lord Lyon as
this would no doubt contain useful references to his powers and
jurisdiction.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <6e8ae8$3vc...@jack.sns.com>, "Michael F. McCartney"
<m...@sns.com> writes

>In article <35096e45...@news.mcs.net>,
> ve...@mcs.nospam (Francois R. Velde) wrote:

>>...since Innes of Learney says that "the power to enoble is vested in the

>>Crown", one would like to know when and how that power was vested by the
>>Crown in Lord Lyon. Innes of Learney does not answer in that particular
>>passage.
>

>The logical places to look, it would seem to me, would be (1) the actual text
>of the letters patent creating (if that's the right word - appointing?) the
>Lord Lyon - preferably both a recent one (Innes father and/or son), and one or
>more old ones - maybe 19th century & then as early as can be found verbatim;
>and (2) the actual text (full text, not extracts) of patents of arms under the
>Innesses, and several of their predecessors, including the oldest available.
>I was under the impression (but only from reading Innes) that the cases cited
>in his footnotes referred to actual grants issued by early Lyons, but can't
>confirm. These documants should, at a minimum, show whether Innes was merely
>following existing precedent--and what that precedent was--or making up new
>stuff. Also, if (repeat if) both old and new patents actually contain the
>words Innes quotes about being taken and accepted as a noble in the noblesse
>of Scotland or whatever the magic words, and if this wording has been accepted
>(not suppressed) over the centuries, then it would be logical to assume that
>it reflected the accepted historical view re: the significance of arms in
>Scotland. Obviously a lot of "ifs" but without the evidence, one has nothing
>on which to base a conclusion other than Innes' writings.

I hear what you are saying and I can go along with your argument.

BUT I would take argument with your phrase "....show whether
Innes....was....making up new stuff." You seem to be implying that the
Law of Arms in Scotland is somehow set in stone and cannot be changed by
one jot and tittle.

This is not true....the Lord Lyon creates and amends the heraldic and
nobiliary laws of Scotland every day he sits as the judge in the Lyon
Court in Edinburgh (and a very pleasant little courtroom it is too!).

Just as the Earl Marshal and the Kings of Arms can change the heraldic
law in England (the phrase "....do hereby by Our own will and mere
motion....", which is often found in charters issued by the Crown comes
to mind) so the Lord Lyon can do the same to heraldic AND NOBILIARY law
in Scotland (the Lord Lyon's jurisdiction covers a wider area than his
English counterparts).

[velde]

In rec.heraldry Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <35096e45...@news.mcs.net>, "Francois R. Velde"
> <ve...@mcs.nospam> writes
> >It is really not necessary to for you to post whole pages out of Innes of
> >Learney.

> Well...you don't seem to want to listen to my arguments so I thought I'd
> go back to the horse's mouth, as it were....I'll just be the humble go-
> between!!! And in any case, YOU might have a copy of Scots Heraldry to
> hand but a lot of the readers would not - I was thinking of them, my
> dear Francois, not your goodself :-)

I wanted to spare you the tedium which my discussions inflict upon you,
but if you don't mind all the typing, so much the better.

> >>A patent of arms is -
> >>and I say this with full official weight - a Diploma of Nobility (8),
> >>and as such both the Scottish and English Kings of Arms have treated
> >>their patents, issued by then as Royal Commissioners.
> >
> >You know as well as I that, in England, a grant of arms is not a diploma of
> >nobility. At most it is the recognition that someone has attained the status of
> >gentleman, which is not the same as nobility (in England or in Scotland).

> You know as well as I that it is a very moot point whether an English
> grant of arms is a diploma of nobility or not. There are strong
> arguments both for and against the contention and the late Lord Lyon is
> perfectly entitled to come down on one side or the other of the
> argument.

He is entitled to his opinion; but he does more than express it, he backs
it "with full official weight". I question how much that weight really
means, when we know the state of the debate in the English case.

> You have to remember that from a Scottish perspective a grant of arms
> from the British Sovereign is as much a diploma of nobility as one
> issued in Scotland.

> Also the phrase "I say this with full official weight" is very
> important....this is not mere words but a definitive statement of the
> Law of Arms in Scotland by a Minister of the Crown. Whatever
> uncertainties had existed before, from the moment Lord Lyon Innes of
> Learney wrote those words the Law of Arms in Scotland was that a coat of
> arms was a Diploma of Nobility.

Certainly not in the English case. In the Scottish case, that would be true
if nobility were within his jurisdiction, a fact that remains to be
established. If it isn't, Lord Lyon could just as well assert "with full
official weight" that a grant of arms is a Diploma of Handsomeness and Superior
Wit.

> >
> >>in most ancient realms the concept of
> >>nobility has been related to the tenure of 'noble terre' and that arms
> >>themselves are regarded as incorporeal 'fiefs annoblissants'.
> >
> >I wonder what "ancient realms" those could possibly be. Nowhere else have arms
> >conferred nobility of themselves, since (in most places) arms have always been
> >acquired by self-assumption. I have never seen anywhere a description of arms
> >as a form of fief; such a description would be absurd since arms, to be like
> >fiefs, would have to be granted, and the first grants of arms date from two
> >hundred years after the birth of heraldry. Fiefs annoblissants, as a side-note,
> >were a rarity after the 14th c. in France (they subsisted in Bearn, Soule,
> >Bigorre and Navarre).

> You're missing the point here, Francois. Both in England and Scotland
> holding land off the King, whether directly as a tenant-in-chief or
> indirectly as a tenant or sub-tenant of a tenant-in-chief was the
> earliest form of "nobility" (the concept of nobility by office came much
> later). In both England and Scotland the right to a coat of arms is in
> law a form of real estate (described as "an incorporeal heridatament")
> as much as 300 rolling acres of finest farmland. In Scotland this point
> is taken a step further to say that a coat of arms is either granted de
> novo or confirmed as being inherited from the past (ie in the form of
> matriculated arms) by the Crown and as such is a fief held off the Crown
> (because is is real estate and ultimately all real estate belongs to the
> Crown) and therefore the person holding this fief is noble.

I understood this theory perfectly, and it is fine as far as it goes.
Let's assume it is a correct description of the present reality. The
point I made, which you miss, is that LL claims that description is
accurate for "ancient realms", and (in the rest of the paragraph)
that the present reality is a survival of medieval times. It is not,
we know that well, since arms were self-assumed. (Brian Scott picked
up on how LL glossed over centuries of unregulated heraldry with a
"very soon".) Once again, I ask what "ancient realms" he has in mind;
no medieval country I can think of, including Scotland. This theory
interprets grants and matriculations as infeoffment, so it cannot apply
beforE Lord Lyon started his register, as mandated by acts of 1592 and
1672. And those acts make no mention of any such interpretation of arms
as ennobling fiefs. The question is, Where does this theory come from,
and what is its earliest appearance in any source?

> It really is a waste of time to ask "when and how this power was vested
> by the Crown in Lord Lyon" as it has probably been accepted since the
> time of the origination of the office of Lord Lyon that this has been
> so.

As long as you use the word "probably" it is not a waste of time. What
I would like to see if evidence to back up this "probably".

> Furthermore the very fact that the Crown has not refuted or denied that
> what Lord Lyon Innes of Learney is true does tend to imply that the
> Crown concurs with the statement of law expressed by him.

Or, more plausibly, that the Crown has no idea what it is LL is doing.

> I think what might be interesting is if someone has available the rubric
> of the medieval ceremonial of inaugurating and crowning the Lord Lyon as
> this would no doubt contain useful references to his powers and
> jurisdiction.

I think we are perfectly in agreement that more data is needed for this
discussion to continue: not just medieval ceremonial, but also texts
of grants from later periods as well.

--
--
Francois R. Velde
http://www.heraldica.org/

[Bryan J. Maloney]

Elias Granqvist wrote:
>
> "Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> >Heraldry is an amusing little preoccupation, I will grant that, but it
> >oughtn't be given too much import in the modern era.
>
> Why not?

Mostly because the people I've met who insist that it should tend to be
truly anal types.

I see nothing wrong with wishing to have some kind of unique familial
identifier, but the problem comes when people start getting all huffy
about nonsense regarding the "right" to bear arms.

[R. Massey]

How about paying for that right! I don't think we have a precedent yet
but it would be interesting to see if arms being considered property
would be upheld under international law. We might just get this from the
unfortunate death of the Princess of Wales.

If a US citizen has gotten arms from (say England) and his name is say
Clinton; I would bet the arms would be protected under international
law.

We need a court case to determine the outcome of someone PAYING for arms
with a government like the UK and having someone using them with the
knowledge these belong to another person.

Randal

Randal

[tpd...@sprynet.com]

> "Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> writes:
>

>
> I see nothing wrong with wishing to have some kind of unique familial
> identifier, but the problem comes when people start getting all huffy
> about nonsense regarding the "right" to bear arms.
>
>>>>

Before there can be a right(at least one enforceable at law) there must be a remedy.
Without the latter, the former doesn't exist.

Regards,

Thomas Pinkney Davis

[Elias Granqvist]

"Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:

>Elias Granqvist wrote:
>>
>> "Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Heraldry is an amusing little preoccupation, I will grant that, but it
>> >oughtn't be given too much import in the modern era.
>>
>> Why not?

>Mostly because the people I've met who insist that it should tend to be
>truly anal types.

>I see nothing wrong with wishing to have some kind of unique familial

>identifier, but the problem comes when people start getting all huffy
>about nonsense regarding the "right" to bear arms.

To put it another way: I see nothing wrong with wishing to have some
kind of unique trademark, but the problem comes when companies start
getting all huffy about nonsense regarding the "right" to use
trademarks.

Is that what you mean? Shall we disregard trademarks too? Or patents?

Except for the British Isles, there are, as far as I know, no country
what so ever, in which anyone is not allowed to carry arms without any
special permission.

Elias Granqvist

[Tad]

Bryan J. Maloney wrote:

>
> BREDALBANE wrote:
> >
> > Just having arms is an honor. Why worry if confers nobility. Arms give the
> > recipiant a disticntion that few have anyway.
>

> And in America, anybody can have arms merely by assuming them.

Ofcourse why anyone would want to do that is beyond me. Why creat
something like a Coat of Arms? The interesting thing about them is that
they are someting handed down from generation to generation, that is not
something a person can just create or get by assuming.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <6e9ntm$jof$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, velde <ve...@MCS.COM> writes

It's tremendously important...a bit like the Earl Marshal and the three
English Kings of Arms sitting in full state in the Court of
Chivalry.....do not underestimate the scope of Lyon's powers (if only we
in England had a draction of them life would be a lot better!)

> when we know the state of the debate in the English case.
>
>> You have to remember that from a Scottish perspective a grant of arms
>> from the British Sovereign is as much a diploma of nobility as one
>> issued in Scotland.
>
>> Also the phrase "I say this with full official weight" is very
>> important....this is not mere words but a definitive statement of the
>> Law of Arms in Scotland by a Minister of the Crown. Whatever
>> uncertainties had existed before, from the moment Lord Lyon Innes of
>> Learney wrote those words the Law of Arms in Scotland was that a coat of
>> arms was a Diploma of Nobility.
>
>Certainly not in the English case. In the Scottish case, that would be true
>if nobility were within his jurisdiction, a fact that remains to be
>established.

> If it isn't, Lord Lyon could just as well assert "with full
>official weight" that a grant of arms is a Diploma of Handsomeness and Superior
>Wit.

For God's sake Francois, this is ridiculous.....

Really? You do surprise me.....everything you've said on this matter so
far suggests to me that you've no understanding of the subtle points
here at all - but there again, I would be very surprised if you did
understand it in any case!

>, and it is fine as far as it goes.
>Let's assume it is a correct description of the present reality. The
>point I made, which you miss, is that LL claims that description is
>accurate for "ancient realms", and (in the rest of the paragraph)
>that the present reality is a survival of medieval times. It is not,
>we know that well, since arms were self-assumed.

But there were not self-assumed by all and sundry...they were only
assumed by people who, had there been a granting authority at that time,
would have been suitable for grants anyway.

> (Brian Scott picked
>up on how LL glossed over centuries of unregulated heraldry with a
>"very soon".) Once again, I ask what "ancient realms" he has in mind;
>no medieval country I can think of, including Scotland. This theory
>interprets grants and matriculations as infeoffment, so it cannot apply
>beforE Lord Lyon started his register, as mandated by acts of 1592 and
>1672. And those acts make no mention of any such interpretation of arms
>as ennobling fiefs. The question is, Where does this theory come from,
>and what is its earliest appearance in any source?
>
>> It really is a waste of time to ask "when and how this power was vested
>> by the Crown in Lord Lyon" as it has probably been accepted since the
>> time of the origination of the office of Lord Lyon that this has been
>> so.
>
>As long as you use the word "probably" it is not a waste of time. What
>I would like to see if evidence to back up this "probably".
>
>> Furthermore the very fact that the Crown has not refuted or denied that
>> what Lord Lyon Innes of Learney is true does tend to imply that the
>> Crown concurs with the statement of law expressed by him.
>
>Or, more plausibly, that the Crown has no idea what it is LL is doing.

Grief!! what a comment to make!!!!

>
>> I think what might be interesting is if someone has available the rubric
>> of the medieval ceremonial of inaugurating and crowning the Lord Lyon as
>> this would no doubt contain useful references to his powers and
>> jurisdiction.
>
>I think we are perfectly in agreement that more data is needed for this
>discussion to continue: not just medieval ceremonial, but also texts
>of grants from later periods as well.
>

I'd be quite happy with a definitive statement by the Lord Lyon.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <35086C...@cornell.edu>, "Bryan J. Maloney"
<bj...@cornell.edu> writes

>Elias Granqvist wrote:
>>
>> "Bryan J. Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Heraldry is an amusing little preoccupation, I will grant that, but it
>> >oughtn't be given too much import in the modern era.
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Mostly because the people I've met who insist that it should tend to be
>truly anal types.

God! what a jerk.....

>
>I see nothing wrong with wishing to have some kind of unique familial
>identifier, but the problem comes when people start getting all huffy
>about nonsense regarding the "right" to bear arms.

So this idiot thinks property rights are "nonsense".....

[Bryan J. Maloney]

Elias Granqvist wrote:

> To put it another way: I see nothing wrong with wishing to have some
> kind of unique trademark, but the problem comes when companies start
> getting all huffy about nonsense regarding the "right" to use
> trademarks.

Not in the least--trademark does not confer even the illusion of
"status" in the minds of the general public the way that bearing arms
confers. To put it another way, holding a trademark merely means that
one has a business in the public mind. To the average American, bearing
a coat of arms is supposed to mean some kind of "status". This is what
I was referring to.

Every person (or legal fiction of a person) who does business under its,
his or her own auspices has a right to a trademark, and this right is
never taken to mean that this legal "person" is somehow endowed with
greater status or lineage.

>
> Is that what you mean? Shall we disregard trademarks too? Or patents?

The protection granted in a patent has nothing at all to do with
identification, it is a means whereby an inventor is permitted to
exclusively make money off of something in return for publishing that
invention and eventually making the knowledge 100% in the public
domain. Is "protection" some desire to be granted to arms devoted to
money-making and does that "protection" automatically entail tossing
those arms into the public domain after a fixed period of time?

Upon the day that the general public stops believing that the mere
possession of arms confers some kind of special "status" or "ennobling"
property, I will change my position.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 19:08:40 +0000, Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <6e9ntm$jof$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, velde <ve...@MCS.COM> writes

>>Certainly not in the English case. In the Scottish case, that would be true

>>if nobility were within his jurisdiction, a fact that remains to be
>>established.

>> If it isn't, Lord Lyon could just as well assert "with full
>>official weight" that a grant of arms is a Diploma of Handsomeness and Superior
>>Wit.

>For God's sake Francois, this is ridiculous.....

No, it's exactly the point at issue. Nobility may be within LL's
jurisdiction, but neither here nor in _Scots Heraldry_ (Innes of
Learney) have I seen a demonstration that this is so. And if it
isn't, has assertion 'with full official weight' means no more in
*theory* than mine. (Practice, obviously, is another matter.)

>>> You're missing the point here, Francois. Both in England and Scotland
>>> holding land off the King, whether directly as a tenant-in-chief or
>>> indirectly as a tenant or sub-tenant of a tenant-in-chief was the
>>> earliest form of "nobility" (the concept of nobility by office came much
>>> later). In both England and Scotland the right to a coat of arms is in
>>> law a form of real estate (described as "an incorporeal heridatament")
>>> as much as 300 rolling acres of finest farmland. In Scotland this point
>>> is taken a step further to say that a coat of arms is either granted de
>>> novo or confirmed as being inherited from the past (ie in the form of
>>> matriculated arms) by the Crown and as such is a fief held off the Crown
>>> (because is is real estate and ultimately all real estate belongs to the
>>> Crown) and therefore the person holding this fief is noble.

>>I understood this theory perfectly

>Really? You do surprise me.....everything you've said on this matter so
>far suggests to me that you've no understanding of the subtle points
>here at all - but there again, I would be very surprised if you did
>understand it in any case!

Why? I'm sure that in practice it contains subtleties of application,
but the underlying principle seems very straightforward.

>>, and it is fine as far as it goes.
>>Let's assume it is a correct description of the present reality. The
>>point I made, which you miss, is that LL claims that description is
>>accurate for "ancient realms", and (in the rest of the paragraph)
>>that the present reality is a survival of medieval times. It is not,
>>we know that well, since arms were self-assumed.

>But there were not self-assumed by all and sundry...they were only
>assumed by people who, had there been a granting authority at that time,
>would have been suitable for grants anyway.

That's very nearly an empty statement. Suitable by what measure?
Modern practice? I shouldn't care to bet on it, and modern practice
is largely irrelevant anyway. The practice of the 13th c.?
Irrelevant, since there was no granting authority.

>>I think we are perfectly in agreement that more data is needed for this
>>discussion to continue: not just medieval ceremonial, but also texts
>>of grants from later periods as well.

>I'd be quite happy with a definitive statement by the Lord Lyon.

A mere statement, especially from an interested party, would be an
inadequate substitute for historical evidence.

Brian M. Scott

[John Coo]

Tad wrote:

> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> > And in America, anybody can have arms merely by assuming them.
>
> Ofcourse why anyone would want to do that is beyond me. Why creat
> something like a Coat of Arms? The interesting thing about them is that
> they are someting handed down from generation to generation, that is not
> something a person can just create or get by assuming.

Somebody had to create or assume the arms in the first place, in order for
them to be passed down the generations. History is a continuous process.
Your great-grandchildren will see your 20th century arms as heirlooms.
Equally, your great-great-grandfather's arms were once a nouveau
pretension.

Traditions and heirlooms have to start somewhere.

JC

[Olivier Marquet]

In:

"Heraldry: Historical development of heraldry: GROWTH OF HERALDRY AFTER THE
13TH CENTURY: Continental versus British heraldry." Britannica Online.
< http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/g?DocF=macro/5002/85/36.html >

you will find a very interisting article on this matter, which explains why
UK "nobility" and continental nobles are not exactly the same thing...

Olivier Marquet

[Olivier Marquet]

Just some interesting litterature on this:

"Heraldry: Historical development of heraldry: GROWTH OF HERALDRY AFTER THE

13TH CENTURY: Records and grants." Britannica Online.
<http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/g?DocF=macro/5002/85/34.html>

And do not forget all this is merely fun, and nothing to take to
seriously....

Olivier Marquet

[Olivier Marquet]

I would also add that in Belgium for instance, it is the coronet which will
define if a coat of arms is or is not noble.

Olivier Marquet

[E.J. Doyle]

The following points may be useful:

1.
Robert Gayre wrote a book "The Nature of Arms", devoted to an examination
of the relationship between heraldry and "nobility." Chapter 3 of the book
is devoted to "The nobiliary status of arms in Scotland in the 16th, 17th
and 18th centuries," while chapter 13 is devoted to "The various meanings
to be attached in the nobiliary law to the terms nobility and gentry."
Irrespective of the correctness, or otherwise, of Mr Gayre's arguments, the
following extract from his book may be relevant: Mr Gayre quotes Sir George
Mackenzie, a sometime Scottish Lord Advocate, from the latter's book "The
Science of Heraldry, " Edinburgh, 1680, as follows:
"It is observable that Lyon cannot give Armes to such as are not Noble
by descent;
for the reason inductive of this Statute is, That there may be a
difference betwixt
such as are Noble, and such as are not; but there would be none, if
it were lawful
to the Lyon to give Arms even to such as are not Gentlemen by birth:
For as he
cannot Nobilitate, so neither can he bestow the Marks of Nobility.
Likeas, by that
Act, he is commanded to inhibit all such as are not Noble to carry
Arms."
This extract is a comment on the Scottish Act of Parliament of 1592. Mr
Gayre also quotes Sir George Mackenzie as follows:
"From which Act, we may draw these Conclusions, That only such as are
Gentlemen by Blood can carry Arms"

2.
I am surprised that there should be such controversy over the equation of
"gentleman" with the continental European "petite noblesse" - I had though
the general equivalency was a matter of historical record. It is well know
that many 10's of thousands of Irishmen were forced to flee to Europe to
escape English persecution and intolerance in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Those who were gentlemen were accorded the status and rights of the petit
noblesse as a matter of course all over Europe - this is well documented
and attested. As these emigres were taking up permanent residence in these
European countries, this cannot be regarded as simply a matter of courtesy
to passing visitors.

E.J. Doyle
*********************************************************
Remove "nospam" to reply
*********************************************************

[Francois R. Velde]

"E.J. Doyle" <ejd...@nospan.ibm.net> wrote:
>Mr Gayre quotes Sir George
>Mackenzie, a sometime Scottish Lord Advocate, from the latter's book "The
>Science of Heraldry, " Edinburgh, 1680, as follows:
> "It is observable that Lyon cannot give Armes to such as are not Noble
>by descent;
> for the reason inductive of this Statute is, That there may be a
>difference betwixt
> such as are Noble, and such as are not; but there would be none, if
>it were lawful
> to the Lyon to give Arms even to such as are not Gentlemen by birth:
>For as he
> cannot Nobilitate, so neither can he bestow the Marks of Nobility.
>Likeas, by that
> Act, he is commanded to inhibit all such as are not Noble to carry
>Arms."
>This extract is a comment on the Scottish Act of Parliament of 1592. Mr
>Gayre also quotes Sir George Mackenzie as follows:
> "From which Act, we may draw these Conclusions, That only such as are
> Gentlemen by Blood can carry Arms"

This is an interesting quote. It flatly denies that Lord Lyon has the power to
confer nobility. The argument is that arms are a mark of nobility, and Lyon
grants arms, therefore Lyon can only grant arms to "nobles by descent". That's
not at all Innes of Learney's theory, as described by Patrick, which is that a
grant of arms, being like an infeoffment, ennobles the grantee automatically.
Nor is it consistent with the notion that one can a priori restrict the exercise
of the Royal prerogative by Lyon. In any event, the Act of 1672 gave Lyon power
to grant arms to people not noble by descent, thus invalidating Sir George's
argument.

>2.
>I am surprised that there should be such controversy over the equation of
>"gentleman" with the continental European "petite noblesse" - I had though
>the general equivalency was a matter of historical record.

Well, someone forgot to tell the social historians.

[Michael F. McCartney]

RE: the latest round in the perennial battle of writs between Patrick &
Francois (is you is or is you ain't my noble) stikes me as yet another example
of Churchill's (or whoever said it first) crack about two peoples divided by a
common language. In this case, however, the two peoples are the Scots & the
English. What the English heralds call being an armigerous gentleman, their
Scottish brethren apparently call petite noblesse (a French term, but not
surprising given the history of the Auld Alliance and, until the Reformation,
the Scottish preference for schooling in France rather than England). Yet the
two traditions seem to be able to communicate, and to make at least some
allowance for each others' quirks. I know that if an Englishman refers to a
bonnet or a boot, its likely to be what I'd call the hood or the trunk of a
car; any arguments either way as to whether they are equivalent, based on
etymology, or which terminology is more historically accurate or pure, don't
change the sheet metal. Similarly, the separate worlds (actually if not
legally) of Army and Navy can't agree (or agree to disagree) on the meaning of
Lieutenant and Captain; but they can still figure out who salutes who. Seems
to me that "noblesse" and "gentility" are rough equivalents, as used &
understood by two neighboring but distinct legal systems. (Also seems to me
like a tempest in a teapot, but since its not my teapot...)

[Michael F. McCartney]

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snipping earlier stuff that's been repeated often enough]
>BUT I would take argument with your [my] phrase "....show whether

>Innes....was....making up new stuff." You seem to be implying that the
>Law of Arms in Scotland is somehow set in stone and cannot be changed by
>one jot and tittle. This is not true....the Lord Lyon creates and amends
>the heraldic and nobiliary laws of Scotland every day he sits as the judge

>in the Lyon Court in Edinburgh... [snip]

I don't necessarily disagree, but then I don't have any first-hand knowledge,
only Innes' book. It would be interesting, though, to see just how much of
Innes' pronouncements merely reflect long-standing legal precedent, and how
much is new. One can argue re: whether the new stuff is good, whether the
Crown is really watching & would approve, etc.; whereas the old precedent
(whether we personally like it or not) is at least not open to any serious
suggestion that various Lyons have slipped it past a long line of Kings and
ministers without their noticing! Perhaps the key documents would be the
letters patent creating new Lyons, if they say anything about it, since the
patents would document just what Royal prerogatives were/are delegated to
Lyon.

[Michael F. McCartney]

>Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>>And in America, anybody can have arms merely by assuming them.

Barry Gabriel:
>A pity.

We assume arms, you assume its a pity; we can each accord equal weight to the
other's assumption...sounds fair enough!

Michael F McCartney m...@sns.com
"Now I lay me down to sleep, and pray the Lord my soul to keep;
and if I die before I wake, I pray the Lord to break all my toys so the other
kids can't play with them" (Shel Silverstein)

[Ld W. Baldwin,MD-S]

Bryan J. Maloney wrote:

>
> Barry Gabriel wrote:
> >
> > Would you drive a car without a license?
>

> Now that has *got* to be, without a doubt, the stupidest, most
> lame-brained, utterly no-alpha-wave-readout pseudo-argument I've seen so
> far on this issue.
> The licensing of automobile operation has to do with the fact that
> automobiles are HEAVY MACHINERY and that people can and do get killed
> operating them--with frightening frequency. There is currently no
> heraldic regulation in the USA, and the amount of fatalities from
> unlicensed heraldry in this country appear to be vanishingly tiny
> compared to the fatalities sustained even under licensed motor vehicle
> operation.

This reminds me of the thread awhile back on establishing an authority
in the US. Someone mentioned that governments have a tendency to pass
laws addressing matters that are considered important enough to make the
agenda. The regualtion of medicine is seen as important and is
regulated, it's practitioners required to be licensed. Heraldry,
however, is not and remains unregulated. I myself would argue that Honor
is even more important than Medicine. (Our present state of society,
crime, and ethics being all the proof I need.) An Authority on Honor
(read Heraldry) is at least as important as an Authority on Medicine to
address many of modern society's problems.

> > You really should have an heraldic authority. Lyon and Garter do have
> > some jurisdiction in the U.S. The former with individuals of proven
>

> Really? Can you cite the portion of the US Constitution, US Code, or US
> court decision that grants them this jurisdiction. Your sun set on our
> bit of your little "empire" before it set anywhere else--remember that.

J. Terzian claimed that the EM's authority was never specifically
rescinded and is thus still valid in the US until rescinded. An
interesting theory\dream....

> Heraldry is an amusing little preoccupation, I will grant that, but it
> oughtn't be given too much import in the modern era.

My condo is directly over the pool at my complex. My children are
constantly mixing up our towels with the other children or just flat
losing them. I've considered putting arms\badge on the suckers this
summer to keep up with them.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <3509a59...@news.csuohio.edu>, "Brian M. Scott"
<sc...@math.csuohio.edu> writes

>On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 19:08:40 +0000, Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
><herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <6e9ntm$jof$1...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, velde <ve...@MCS.COM> writes
>

>>>Certainly not in the English case. In the Scottish case, that would be true
>>>if nobility were within his jurisdiction, a fact that remains to be
>>>established.
>
>>> If it isn't, Lord Lyon could just as well assert "with full
>>>official weight" that a grant of arms is a Diploma of Handsomeness and
>Superior
>>>Wit.
>
>>For God's sake Francois, this is ridiculous.....
>

>No, it's exactly the point at issue. Nobility may be within LL's
>jurisdiction, but neither here nor in _Scots Heraldry_ (Innes of
>Learney) have I seen a demonstration that this is so. And if it
>isn't, has assertion 'with full official weight' means no more in
>*theory* than mine. (Practice, obviously, is another matter.)

Look, it is ridiculous because it's all part of the repetitive cry of
"Prove it!" that we seem to be getting on this newsgroup of late (and
most of which comes from a westerly direction!).

A lot of the "things" that happen in heraldic "circles" in the United
Kingdom date back centuries and centuries and there is nothing written
to support claims to this right and to that right. Things are accepted
as being as they are because they have been accepted as such for
centuries. Everyone concerned knows that things are "so" - no-one
questions anything and everyone, from the Crown down to the humble
petitioner for arms, is happy with the situation.

So when a statement or assertion about this or that officer's rights is
questioned the only answer is "Because it has always been so".

As I've mentioned several times on here but no-one, not even the over
learned Francois, seems to have picked up on is that in UK law there is
a generally accepted maxim to the effect that if the holders of an
office have acted consistently in a certain way then, unless you can
find evidence to the contrary, you can assume that they are acting in
accordance with the law or in accordance with a charter or grant, even
though you cannot ascertain which law or charter or grant it is that
they are acting in accordance with.

This is particularly important to offices held under the Crown as
several American posters (or perhaps just the learned Mr Velde) have
suggested that the Crown was not aware what rights this officer or that
officer was claiming to have. All I can say is that there must be some
aberration in the American psyche that lets itself see conspiracies and
plots where there are patently none. Of course the Crown, in both
countries, has been aware for centuries what it's officers of arms are
doing.

Indeed, the fact that the Crown has not intervened in the activities to
refute any of the claims of either the College of Arms or the Lord Lyon
is the strongest evidence that their claims are correct.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <6edfl6$a0_...@jack.sns.com>, "Michael F. McCartney"
<m...@sns.com> writes

>RE: the latest round in the perennial battle of writs between Patrick &
>Francois (is you is or is you ain't my noble) stikes me as yet another example
>of Churchill's (or whoever said it first) crack about two peoples divided by a
>common language. In this case, however, the two peoples are the Scots & the
>English. What the English heralds call being an armigerous gentleman, their
>Scottish brethren apparently

Not "apparently" but "actually" - read a Scottish grant to confirm this.

> call petite noblesse

No...not "petite noblesse" but "members of the [Armorial] Noblesse of
Scotland"

> (a French term, but not
>surprising given the history of the Auld Alliance and, until the Reformation,
>the Scottish preference for schooling in France rather than England). Yet the
>two traditions seem to be able to communicate, and to make at least some
>allowance for each others' quirks. I know that if an Englishman refers to a
>bonnet or a boot, its likely to be what I'd call the hood or the trunk of a
>car; any arguments either way as to whether they are equivalent, based on
>etymology, or which terminology is more historically accurate or pure, don't
>change the sheet metal. Similarly, the separate worlds (actually if not
>legally) of Army and Navy can't agree (or agree to disagree) on the meaning of
>Lieutenant and Captain; but they can still figure out who salutes who. Seems
>to me that "noblesse" and "gentility" are rough equivalents

I would agree with this.....

>, as used &
>understood by two neighboring but distinct legal systems. (Also seems to me
>like a tempest in a teapot, but since its not my teapot...)

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <01bd4f04$62afe500$4c292581@c72fb759>, "E.J. Doyle"
<ejd...@nospan.ibm.net> writes

>
>The following points may be useful:
>
>1.
> Robert Gayre wrote a book "The Nature of Arms", devoted to an examination
>of the relationship between heraldry and "nobility." Chapter 3 of the book
>is devoted to "The nobiliary status of arms in Scotland in the 16th, 17th
>and 18th centuries," while chapter 13 is devoted to "The various meanings
>to be attached in the nobiliary law to the terms nobility and gentry."
>Irrespective of the correctness, or otherwise, of Mr Gayre's arguments, the

>following extract from his book may be relevant: Mr Gayre quotes Sir George

>Mackenzie, a sometime Scottish Lord Advocate, from the latter's book "The
>Science of Heraldry, " Edinburgh, 1680, as follows:
> "It is observable that Lyon cannot give Armes to such as are not Noble
>by descent;
> for the reason inductive of this Statute is, That there may be a
>difference betwixt
> such as are Noble, and such as are not; but there would be none, if
>it were lawful
> to the Lyon to give Arms even to such as are not Gentlemen by birth:
>For as he
> cannot Nobilitate, so neither can he bestow the Marks of Nobility.
>Likeas, by that
> Act, he is commanded to inhibit all such as are not Noble to carry
>Arms."
>This extract is a comment on the Scottish Act of Parliament of 1592. Mr
>Gayre also quotes Sir George Mackenzie as follows:
> "From which Act, we may draw these Conclusions, That only such as are
> Gentlemen by Blood can carry Arms"

You have obviously read the late Gayre's "The Nature of Arms". With
respect, I think you are taking this quote out of context to prove a
point.

Gayre goes on to say: "It should, however, be realised that this
statement of heraldic law in Scotland, as given by [Mackenzie of]
Rosehaugh, refers to the position of affairs in Scotland as it was under
the Act of 1592, and before the Act of 1672. It is, therefore, very
important to realise that the commentary of Rosehaugh is not only on the
Act of 1592 but it reflects practices which were still in evidence under
that act in the seventeenth century, and not those which prevailed
subsequently to the passing of the 1672 Act. It refers, as a
consequence, to an intermediate state between that in which only the
pre-existing nobility had a right to arms from Lyon, and that which now
prevails."

Much later in the same chapter Gayre says: "Thus, what it was said at
first the King of Arms had bot power to do- which was to ennoble - in
fact he came to do by his grants becoming the device of confirming and
making hereditary the personal nobility which had been achieved by the
petitioners. This change is reflected in the difference between the Act
of 1592 and that of 1672 of the Scottish Parliament. The former is
takne up with matriculatin arms to established nobles, but the second
and later Act also adds that Lyon "may give Armes to vertuous and well-
deserving Persones". Thus the 'tesserae nobilitatis' may be conferred,
on Lyon's own authority, to virtuous and well-deserving persons, such as
the classes we have been discussing. By this step in the extension of
his power, the King of Arms thus relieved the Prince of the need to
issue personally patents of nobility, and he became his Commissioner for
Nobility."

He ends with: "We have thus followed through, in the procedure of the
Scottish Court of Chivalry, clear evidence of the evolution of the
powers of the Kings of Arms, from the stage at which they dealt solely
with matriculations and confirmations or arms to established nobility,
to that when they had added to their duties grants to those ennobled by
the Prince, and finally to the stage at which all those who were by
office held to be noble could receive permanent ensignes of nobility not
only for themselves but also for transmission to their descendants.
Since the Court of the Lord Lyon functions under these very same acts
which we have mentioned, and has done so without interruption since the
times with which we have been dealing, it is unquestionably still the
law in Scotland that arms are cognizances of nobility."

>
>2.
>I am surprised that there should be such controversy over the equation of
>"gentleman" with the continental European "petite noblesse" - I had though

>the general equivalency was a matter of historical record. It is well know
>that many 10's of thousands of Irishmen were forced to flee to Europe to
>escape English persecution and intolerance in the 17th and 18th centuries.
>Those who were gentlemen were accorded the status and rights of the petit
>noblesse as a matter of course all over Europe - this is well documented
>and attested. As these emigres were taking up permanent residence in these
>European countries, this cannot be regarded as simply a matter of courtesy
>to passing visitors.

Agreed!

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <350a31c2...@news.mcs.net>, "Francois R. Velde"
<ve...@mcs.nospam> writes

>"E.J. Doyle" <ejd...@nospan.ibm.net> wrote:
>>Mr Gayre quotes Sir George
>>Mackenzie, a sometime Scottish Lord Advocate, from the latter's book "The
>>Science of Heraldry, " Edinburgh, 1680, as follows:
>> "It is observable that Lyon cannot give Armes to such as are not Noble
>>by descent;
>> for the reason inductive of this Statute is, That there may be a
>>difference betwixt
>> such as are Noble, and such as are not; but there would be none, if
>>it were lawful
>> to the Lyon to give Arms even to such as are not Gentlemen by birth:
>>For as he
>> cannot Nobilitate, so neither can he bestow the Marks of Nobility.
>>Likeas, by that
>> Act, he is commanded to inhibit all such as are not Noble to carry
>>Arms."
>>This extract is a comment on the Scottish Act of Parliament of 1592. Mr
>>Gayre also quotes Sir George Mackenzie as follows:
>> "From which Act, we may draw these Conclusions, That only such as are
>> Gentlemen by Blood can carry Arms"
>

>This is an interesting quote. It flatly denies that Lord Lyon has the power to
>confer nobility.

As I have said in a reply to the same posting, the quote has been taken
out of context. Gayre clearly shows that in Scotland there was a
gradual evolution from a stage when the Lord Lyon dealt solely with
matricualtions and confirmations or arms to established nobility, to
that when they added their duties grants to those ennobled by the King,
and finally to the stage we are now at by which all those who were by
office held to be noble could receive permanent ensigns of nobility not

only for themselves but also for transmission to their descendants.

> The argument is that arms are a mark of nobility, and Lyon

>grants arms, therefore Lyon can only grant arms to "nobles by descent". That's
>not at all Innes of Learney's theory, as described by Patrick, which is that a
>grant of arms, being like an infeoffment, ennobles the grantee automatically.
>Nor is it consistent with the notion that one can a priori restrict the exercise
>of the Royal prerogative by Lyon. In any event, the Act of 1672 gave Lyon power
>to grant arms to people not noble by descent, thus invalidating Sir George's
>argument.

See my posting, plese.

>
>>2.
>>I am surprised that there should be such controversy over the equation of
>>"gentleman" with the continental European "petite noblesse" - I had though
>>the general equivalency was a matter of historical record.
>

>Well, someone forgot to tell the social historians.

Can there really be an argument that an English, Scottish or Irish
armiger is NOT the equivalent to the untitled nobility on Continental
Europe.

I think not.

[Olivier Marquet]

You wrote:
>
>Can there really be an argument that an English, Scottish or Irish
>armiger is NOT the equivalent to the untitled nobility on Continental
>Europe.
>
>I think not.

Obviously, there is an argument and a serious one, from the moment the
nobility they claim would be conferred them by an herald and not directly by
the sovereign. No continental legal authority (but there are so few) would
recognise this "noblesse". I do not speak about having arms recognised, but
about having the nobility recognised, which are two very different things.

As far as I know, only Belgium and the Netherlands still have such legal
authorities, and their decisions have to be countersigned by the King.

I recommend again the reading of the next article:

"Heraldry: Historical development of heraldry: GROWTH OF HERALDRY AFTER THE

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <6eh34q$4vv$1...@news0.skynet.be>, Olivier Marquet
<olivier...@skynet.be> writes

>
>
>You wrote:
>>
>>Can there really be an argument that an English, Scottish or Irish
>>armiger is NOT the equivalent to the untitled nobility on Continental
>>Europe.
>>
>>I think not.
>
>
>Obviously, there is an argument and a serious one, from the moment the
>nobility they claim would be conferred them by an herald and not directly by
>the sovereign. No continental legal authority (but there are so few) would
>recognise this "noblesse". I do not speak about having arms recognised, but
>about having the nobility recognised, which are two very different things.

Could I perhaps refer you to the booklet "English Nobility: The Gentry,
the Heralds and the Continental Context" by M J Sayer (Norfolk Heraldry
Society, 1979) which looks at the arguments for and against equating the
English gentry with Continental nobility.

Apropos your comment above, I have come across examples where
continental legal authorities have accepted an English or a Scottish
gentleman (or an Irish one, for that!) as possessing a nobility equal to
that of the untitled nobles in their own country.

Gayre, for example, has many interesting comments to make on this point
in his book "The Nature of Arms" as does Sayer in his booklet.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <6edglb$a0_...@jack.sns.com>, "Michael F. McCartney"
<m...@sns.com> writes

>Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[snipping earlier stuff that's been repeated often enough]
>>BUT I would take argument with your [my] phrase "....show whether
>>Innes....was....making up new stuff." You seem to be implying that the
>>Law of Arms in Scotland is somehow set in stone and cannot be changed by
>>one jot and tittle. This is not true....the Lord Lyon creates and amends
>>the heraldic and nobiliary laws of Scotland every day he sits as the judge
>>in the Lyon Court in Edinburgh... [snip]
>
>I don't necessarily disagree, but then I don't have any first-hand knowledge,
>only Innes' book. It would be interesting, though, to see just how much of
>Innes' pronouncements merely reflect long-standing legal precedent, and how
>much is new.

The point is irrelevant....the Lord Lyon is the sole source of heraldic
and nobiliary law in the Kingdom of Scotland as the Crown's Deputy in
such matters and and can make and unmake such law as he choses.

> One can argue re: whether the new stuff is good, whether the
>Crown is really watching & would approve, etc.; whereas the old precedent
>(whether we personally like it or not) is at least not open to any serious
>suggestion that various Lyons have slipped it past a long line of Kings and
>ministers without their noticing!

This really does conjure up a bizarre picture in my head! To be
serious, in Scottish heraldic matters the Lord Lyon, like the Earl
Marshal in England, *IS* the Crown - he has unfettered jurisdiction and
is not subject to any form of controlment.

> Perhaps the key documents would be the
>letters patent creating new Lyons, if they say anything about it, since the
>patents would document just what Royal prerogatives were/are delegated to
>Lyon.

I'm not too sure that they would have anything to say on the
matter...but I'll find out!

[E.J. Doyle]

Olivier Marquet <olivier...@skynet.be> wrote in article
<6eh34q$4vv$1...@news0.skynet.be>...

>
>
> You wrote:
> >
> >Can there really be an argument that an English, Scottish or Irish
> >armiger is NOT the equivalent to the untitled nobility on Continental
> >Europe.
> >
> >I think not.
>
>
> Obviously, there is an argument and a serious one, from the moment the
> nobility they claim would be conferred them by an herald and not directly
by
> the sovereign. No continental legal authority (but there are so few)
would
> recognise this "noblesse".

This is quite incorrect. For centuries all continental legal authorities
did in fact routinely and frequently recognize this "noblesse". I speak of
the Crowns of France, Spain, Austria, Russia, etc., in the 17th and 18th
centuries who routinely faced this question with regard to the Irish
emigres they harbored. With such a weight of historical evidence, from so
many countries, over a period of centuries, I think it is more than a
little late to try to bring this point into contention now.

> about having the nobility recognised, which are two very different
things.
>

> As far as I know, only Belgium and the Netherlands still have such legal
> authorities, and their decisions have to be countersigned by the King.
>
> I recommend again the reading of the next article:
>
> "Heraldry: Historical development of heraldry: GROWTH OF HERALDRY AFTER
THE
> 13TH CENTURY: Continental versus British heraldry." Britannica Online.
> < http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/g?DocF=macro/5002/85/36.html >
>

I you will provide your login name and password I will indeed read this and
the other articles you have referred to.

[Olivier Marquet]

E.J. Doyle a écrit dans le message <01bd5075$91fb4080$e5292581@c72fb759>...

>I you will provide your login name and password I will indeed read this and
>the other articles you have referred to.

I am sorry, I did not relise this was required. Here is the article:

Heraldry
Continental versus British heraldry.

Much greater significance was attached in former times to heraldic
insignia, though the attitude varied from country to country. Heraldry has
become more widespread than at any other time, but as a sign of rank it has
hardly any remaining value. (see also Index: social class)

A distinction can be made between the Continent and Great Britain
regarding medieval and later heraldry. The doctrine of the Seize Quartiers
(16 quarterings) prevailed over most of the Continent but not in Britain.
This theory required that, in order for a person to claim nobility, all of
his 16 ancestors (16 great-great-grandparents) should have been entitled to
bear arms. This is known as the "Proof of the Seize Quartiers" and was the
reason why Frederick II the Great of Prussia, though professing the views of
the Enlightenment in the Age of Reason, diligently scrutinized his
courtiers' quarterings. The theory is based on the rigidity of a noble caste
that married only with its own kind. On the Continent, every member of a
noble family is noble; hence the enormous numbers of titles. Similarly, the
continental royalty tended to marry only with other royal families. As a
result both royal and noble families formed a class apart from the bulk of
the people.

Continental heraldic insignia, therefore, from their origins until the
late 18th century, provided symbols to indicate a higher caste and, in fact,
were signs of nobility. Yet, strangely, in several countries heraldry was in
wide general use as a means of identification, serving in the same way as a
surname. In France, for example, it is abundantly clear that from the 13th
century, not only the bourgeoisie of the towns but also the peasants bore
heraldic arms. The usage had percolated down from the noble class. The
earliest example of the use of arms by a peasant is that of Jaquier le
Brebiet in 1369, whose arms show a punning allusion to his name (brebis,
"sheep"--three sheep held by a girl). In other European lands--Hungary and
the Low Countries--burgher or peasant arms were also found, but neither in
these lands nor in France were the possessors regarded as noble.

In France the regulations of arms followed a quite different course from
those in England. Although King Charles VI had in 1407 led the way in
creating a college of arms, his heralds lost influence over the next two
centuries. They had no power, unlike their Scottish and English
counterparts, to grant arms and they gradually faded into insignificance. To
overcome the loss, Louis XIII in 1615 appointed a juge géneral d'armes
("general judge of arms"), an official whose powers resembled those of the
Lord Lyon. The French royal government showed itself very broad-minded on
the possession of arms. A decree of Louis XIV in 1696, designed to raise
money, ordered all persons who bore arms to register them. Even those who
were not part of the arms-bearing population were forced to buy arms. Later,
in 1760, an ordinance was framed by which the lesser townsfolk, artisans,
and peasants were to be excluded from the use of arms--after these classes
had used them for 400 years. But the Parlement of Paris refused to allow the
ordinance to be implemented. Later, during the French Revolution (1789),
arms were suppressed as signs of feudalism.

The view of arms held in England was and is quite different. No such thing
as a noble caste has ever existed in England. Only the reigning peer and his
wife are regarded as noble; the rest of the family are commoners, and only a
few of them bear what are called courtesy titles. Moreover, except for the
Hanoverian (1714-1837) and Victorian (1837-1901) epochs, the royal house has
not necessarily married royalty but much more often the nobility, a practice
to which it has returned in the present century. As a result, the
Continental doctrine of Seize Quartiers does not apply in England. It
cannot, since noble and non-noble are so mixed. Nor are there any such
things as non-noble arms. All arms are on the same basis; all are signs of
gentility--nobility, in fact. Arms then have long had a high social
significance in England; those who possess them have social prestige. The
situation is somewhat different in Scotland where arms are bound up with
clanship and family solidarity. To the Scotsman, arms are not so much a
matter of social status as of family or clan, and he proves his right to
them by process of law in Lyon Court.

ex:

[Francois R. Velde]

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>As I have said in a reply to the same posting, the quote has been taken
>out of context. Gayre clearly shows that in Scotland there was a
>gradual evolution from a stage when the Lord Lyon dealt solely with
>matricualtions and confirmations or arms to established nobility, to
>that when they added their duties grants to those ennobled by the King,
>and finally to the stage we are now at by which all those who were by
>office held to be noble could receive permanent ensigns of nobility not
>only for themselves but also for transmission to their descendants.

This gradual evolution, if you accept it, is incompatible with Innes of
Learney's presentation of ennobling grants of arms as a situation which
prevailed "in ancient realms" of which survives from medieval to present times
in Scotland. Between the two, which are you inclined to believe?

>Can there really be an argument that an English, Scottish or Irish
>armiger is NOT the equivalent to the untitled nobility on Continental
>Europe.

Yes there can be, and there is. We've been over this ground before. I've
posted arguments, and citations from the work of social historians (not
antiquarians or holders of British grants of arms, whose desire to believe in
that equivalence is quite understandable). I won't do it again.

[Francois R. Velde]

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Look, it is ridiculous because it's all part of the repetitive cry of
>"Prove it!" that we seem to be getting on this newsgroup of late (and
>most of which comes from a westerly direction!).
>
>A lot of the "things" that happen in heraldic "circles" in the United
>Kingdom date back centuries and centuries and there is nothing written
>to support claims to this right and to that right.

All I'd like to see is support for the claim that it dates back "centuries and
centuries".

>Things are accepted
>as being as they are because they have been accepted as such for
>centuries.

All I'm asking for is support for the claim that it has been accepted as such
for centuries. For example, you asserted that barons and armigers are
considered "noblemen" in Scotland. Yet the act of 1592 and the act of 1672
distinguishes between noblemen, barons and gentlemen. As of the time of
Stevenson's treatise in 1914, noblemen and gentlemen were still distinct
categories in Scotland. I haven't seen you explain when all three categories
were treated as one. We're not talking about "centuries and centuries" here.

I appreciate that what I am asking for is not easy to find, and that you are
convinced that it is a waste of time to look for it. I would like to look for
it myself as time permits. I'm not passing judgment one way or the other;
suspicions are not beliefs. What I do protest against is your attitude that
there is no need to look for any evidence whatsoever, and all we need are vague
statements that things have been going on for "centuries and centuries".

>Of course the Crown, in both
>countries, has been aware for centuries what it's officers of arms are
>doing.
>
>Indeed, the fact that the Crown has not intervened in the activities to
>refute any of the claims of either the College of Arms or the Lord Lyon
>is the strongest evidence that their claims are correct.

If indeed Lord Lyon has been using explicit language in his grants of arms
conferring "noblesse" for "centuries and centuries".

[Francois R. Velde]

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Apropos your comment above, I have come across examples where
>continental legal authorities have accepted an English or a Scottish
>gentleman (or an Irish one, for that!) as possessing a nobility equal to

>that of the untitled nobles in their own country.

There is no doubt that it happened a lot. By no means does it imply equivalence
between the two. In particular, the criteria which continental authorities used
to decide on the nobility of a British or Irish immigrant were very different
from the criteria which would have made him a gentleman in his home country.
For example, the son of a English yeoman or lawyer might well have reached an
income level sufficient to buy a seat, live as a gentleman and obtain a grant of
arms. He would be considered a gentleman, named as such in legal documents,
participated in the political and civic life of his county as a member of the
gentry, etc. In Paris, he would not have been accepted as noble without a
special act of the French king, because all the criteria which made him a
gentleman in England did not make him a noble in France. In particular, the
grant of arms (recognition of gentle status in England) conferred no nobility
whatsoever in France. The criteria which the legal authorities in France used
were the length of the pedigree, the families married into, the professional
activities of the petitioner and his forebears, and probably what letters of
recommendation he obtained from important people in France.

As social entities, the continental nobility and the British gentry were
fundamentally different, in terms or who was part of it and how one became part
of it. Obviously they occupied somewhat similar positions in the social
hierarchy, below titled nobility but above most other classes. That is a strong
similarity, but that is also where the similarity ends. Just as the titled
nobility of Britain is different from that of the continent, so the gentry is
different. It seems to me that a lot of Britain's remarkable, and unique
political, social and economic development over the centuries is due to this
remarkable, and unique social construct.

[Francois R. Velde]

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6edfl6$a0_...@jack.sns.com>, "Michael F. McCartney"

>>Seems
>>to me that "noblesse" and "gentility" are rough equivalents
>
>I would agree with this.....

But Patrick, you were the one who taught me that the English kings of arms
cannot grant gentility, they merely recognize it. In that respect, there can't
be similarity between the "noblesse" that Lord Lyon says he grants, and the
gentry that English kings of arms never claimed to be granting.

My impression of the Act of 1672 is that its program is very much that of Henry
VIII's commissions to his heralds: make a register, stamp out "illegal" armory,
and grant arms to well-deserving persons. In England, the kings of arms
certainly never construed this to mean that they were granting nobility. Why
did this interpretation emerge in Scotland?

I, too, would find it plausible to equate the Scottish "armorial noblesse" with
a kind of Scottish equivalent to the English gentry. But I cannot quite see how
to reconcile this equation with the granting powers of Lord Lyon. I think that
is more than a detail.

>>, as used &
>>understood by two neighboring but distinct legal systems. (Also seems to me
>>like a tempest in a teapot, but since its not my teapot...)

--

[E.J. Doyle]

Francois R. Velde <ve...@mcs.nospam> wrote in article
<350a31c2...@news.mcs.net>...
> "E.J. Doyle" <ejd...@nospan.ibm.net> wrote:

> >I am surprised that there should be such controversy over the equation
of
> >"gentleman" with the continental European "petite noblesse" - I had
though
> >the general equivalency was a matter of historical record.
>
> Well, someone forgot to tell the social historians.

Why should we prefer the judgement of modern "social" historians (is their
history distinct from that of "real" historians?) as opposed to a well
documented historical position, accepted by the authorities of the day (the
Monarchical regimes of the past)? That the nobiliary principles and
practices of Continental Europe on the one hand, and Britain and Ireland on
the other diverged is beyond doubt, yet it is also beyond doubt that the
two (or more) systems had to interface on a regular and frequent basis. Why
question the modus operandi of mutual acceptance and recognition that
prevailed at the time?

[E.J. Doyle]

--
*********************************************************
E.J. Doyle
Remove "nospam" from address to reply
*********************************************************

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote in
article <R2tRKuA$Z9C1...@londwill.demon.co.uk>...

> In article <01bd4f04$62afe500$4c292581@c72fb759>, "E.J. Doyle"
> <ejd...@nospan.ibm.net> writes
> >

> You have obviously read the late Gayre's "The Nature of Arms". With

> respect, I think you are taking this quote out of context to prove a
> point.

I was not trying to prove a point with this - I simply thought the extract
would be of interest. If I were trying to represent the views of Robert
Gayre you would be correct that the quote would be out of context - his
views are clearly very similar to yours. However, I was not using the
quotes to present Gayre's position, but rather I thought his extracts from
a book of 1680 would be of interest in and of themselves - these extracts
from the earlier book of 1680 I quoted in full, and there is no question of
me having distorting them. I am sorry that any confusion over this caused
you so much effort in quoting other parts of Gayre's book.

[Michael F. McCartney]

I wrote: [snipping much] What the English heralds call being an armigerous

gentleman, their Scottish brethren apparently

Patrick:

>Not "apparently" but "actually" - read a Scottish grant to confirm this.

I would if I had one! - but there seems to be a death of them at the local
Arms "R" Us... Seriously, your webpages include your Irish grant & Scottish
matriculation, plus IIRC at least one patent appointing an English herald. If
you could lay hands on a Scottish grant - or better if someone could send you
the verbatim text of one - it would make an interesting and informative
addition. I said "apparently" because I haven't seen a full text.

[E.J. Doyle]

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote in

article <Fbx2RDAZ...@londwill.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <19980311043...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, BREDALBANE
> <breda...@aol.com> writes
> > Help me out here! I believe one can be "noble" , but not a "peer".
Peers may
> >sit in the House of Lords. The lesser nobility are not peers. Knights
are of
> >the lesser nobility and can be in the Commons. I do not know if
"baronets" can
> >be in the commons(they are considered lesser nobility, but their title
is
> >hereditary). Will someone clear this up for me?
> > Thanks, BREDA...@aol.com
> >
>
> It all depends which country you are talking about....
>
> In England only the holder of a peerage and his wife is noble (peeresses
> in their own right do not transfer their nobility to their
> husbands!)....their children rank as commoners as do baronets, knights,
> Lords of the Manor, armigerous gentlemen, etc, etc.
>
> In Scotland nobility is enjoyed by a far wider group...essentially it is
> all those (be they younger sons of peers, baronets, knights, feudal
> barons, or even gentlemen of coat armour) who have been granted arms by
> or who have matriculated arms with the Lord Lyon (it is not usual for
> eldest sons to matriculate arms as they inherit their father's
> armigerous estate)....obviously a newly ennobled peer who had not
> established his right to arms in one way or another would still be a
> noble in Scottish eyes.
>

Or, you can be noble and a peer, and still not sit in the House of Lords,
i.e. peers in the peerage of Ireland (many of whom are actually British),
who can sit in the British House of Commons as MP's.

But for Patrick - isn't there a problem here for you? According to what you
say here, English gentlemen of coat armor are not "noble", but Scottish
are. But can't said English gentlemen simply go and matriculate their arms
in Scotland, whereupon.... If this is actually the case it would seem
strange.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <6eipjm$e0_...@jack.sns.com>, "Michael F. McCartney"
<m...@sns.com> writes

Hmmm...so my word is not good enough.....

[Francois R. Velde]

"E.J. Doyle" <ejd...@nospam.ibm.net> wrote:
>Why should we prefer the judgement of modern "social" historians (is their
>history distinct from that of "real" historians?)

They study society. (as opposed to economics, culture, politics, military,
etc). They are just as real as any of their colleagues.

>as opposed to a well
>documented historical position, accepted by the authorities of the day (the
>Monarchical regimes of the past)?

I'd be curious to see documentation that, say, the French authorities ever said
that *any* (not some) member of the English gentry was the same as a French
noble. I do not doubt that many members of the English or Irish gentry were
accepted in the French nobility (which could only happen after letters patent
issued by the king). That does not mean that any English gentleman would have
been. In particular, I doubt that an English grant of arms would have been
taken, *alone*, as sufficient proof of nobility of the grantee, without a
pedigree; whereas it was proof of gentility in English courts, no matter what
the background of the individual may have been.

[E.J. Doyle]

Francois R. Velde <ve...@mcs.nospam> wrote in article

<350df47...@news.mcs.net>...

> "E.J. Doyle" <ejd...@nospam.ibm.net> wrote:
>
> I'd be curious to see documentation that, say, the French authorities
ever said
> that *any* (not some) member of the English gentry was the same as a
French
> noble. I do not doubt that many members of the English or Irish gentry
were
> accepted in the French nobility (which could only happen after letters
patent
> issued by the king). That does not mean that any English gentleman would
have

I cannot answer for what the French authorities did or did not say. What I
do know, however, is that the Ulster Kings of Arms in Ireland had a regular
business providing "Certificates of Noblesse" (GO MS. # 344?) to the
French authorities - what the French did with these, perhaps you can say.
The point being that those provided with such certificates were not
"nobles" in the modern British sense of peers, but rather simply gentlemen
- some of whom from what I have read, had not previously registered their
arms.

[Michael F. McCartney]

"E.J. Doyle" <ejd...@nospam.ibm.net> wrote:
>But for Patrick - isn't there a problem here for you? According to what you
>say here, English gentlemen of coat armor are not "noble", but Scottish
>are. But can't said English gentlemen simply go and matriculate their arms
>in Scotland, whereupon.... If this is actually the case it would seem
>strange.

Seems easier (& probably nearer the truth) to view it as differences in
terminology rather than any great intrinsic difference. Think of the English
as Navy & the Scots as Army; an English (Naval) Captain, the Scots would call
a Colonel. They recognize the equivalency, but aren't particularly happy or
comfortable with each other's choice of terms. This is oversimplified of
course, but then what isn't?

[Michael F. McCartney]

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Hmmm...so my word is not good enough.....

Now you know how God must feel when scientists look for the origins of life!

[Klaus Ole Kristiansen]

Tad <cku...@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu> writes:

>Ofcourse why anyone would want to do that is beyond me. Why creat
>something like a Coat of Arms? The interesting thing about them is that
>they are someting handed down from generation to generation, that is not
>something a person can just create or get by assuming.

It has to start somewhere. If you assume arms, your great-grandchildren
will have arms that have been in the family for generations.

Klaus O K

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <01bd50c4$6f7fcae0$2d2a2581@c72fb759>, "E.J. Doyle"
<ejd...@nospam.ibm.net> writes

>But for Patrick - isn't there a problem here for you? According to what you
>say here, English gentlemen of coat armor are not "noble", but Scottish
>are. But can't said English gentlemen simply go and matriculate their arms
>in Scotland, whereupon.... If this is actually the case it would seem
>strange.

Err...I'm quite happy being an English esquire.....

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

In article <3512ba07...@news.mcs.net>, "Francois R. Velde"
<ve...@mcs.nospam> writes

>Patrick Cracroft-Brennan <herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>As I have said in a reply to the same posting, the quote has been taken
>>out of context. Gayre clearly shows that in Scotland there was a
>>gradual evolution from a stage when the Lord Lyon dealt solely with
>>matricualtions and confirmations or arms to established nobility, to
>>that when they added their duties grants to those ennobled by the King,
>>and finally to the stage we are now at by which all those who were by
>>office held to be noble could receive permanent ensigns of nobility not
>>only for themselves but also for transmission to their descendants.
>
>This gradual evolution, if you accept it, is incompatible with Innes of
>Learney's presentation of ennobling grants of arms as a situation which
>prevailed "in ancient realms" of which survives from medieval to present times
>in Scotland. Between the two, which are you inclined to believe?

Now there's one hell of a choice!!!

>
>>Can there really be an argument that an English, Scottish or Irish
>>armiger is NOT the equivalent to the untitled nobility on Continental
>>Europe.
>
>Yes there can be, and there is. We've been over this ground before. I've
>posted arguments, and citations from the work of social historians (not
>antiquarians or holders of British grants of arms, whose desire to believe in
>that equivalence is quite understandable). I won't do it again.

Agreed...but I happen to think they're wrong.....

But lets not re-erect that old chestnut!

[Dolmenx]

>>Well, someone forgot to tell the social historians.

Just what is a "social historian"?? Something like a "social scientist" or
"social anthropologist"?

This is simply NEWSPEAK nonsense, attempting to redefine reality. Sorry, I
don't buy it.

Patrick, as usual , is pretty much on target.
L.K.

[Ld W. Baldwin,MD-S]

Ld W. Baldwin,MD-S wrote:
>
> My condo is directly over the pool at my complex. My children are
> constantly mixing up our towels with the other children or just flat
> losing them. I've considered putting arms\badge on the suckers this
> summer to keep up with them.

Clarification to my own post:
I planned on putting the coats on the *towels* not the children.

[John Coo]

Ld W. Baldwin,MD-S

I don't know why not - we occasionally get posts from people who want to
tatoo "my family coat of arms" on themselves. I think this should be
encouraged. The tricky bit is removing the label when your heraldic heir
inherits...

JC

[Francois R. Velde]

"John Coo" <john...@carleton.ca> wrote:
>Ld W. Baldwin,MD-S

>> I planned on putting the coats on the *towels* not the children.
>
>I don't know why not - we occasionally get posts from people who want to
>tatoo "my family coat of arms" on themselves. I think this should be
>encouraged. The tricky bit is removing the label when your heraldic heir
>inherits...

I'd hate to think what would happen to the kids during a trip to Scotland...

[Barry Gabriel]

I already replied to this privately, but what the heck...

Michael F. McCartney wrote:
>>Bryan J. Maloney wrote: [snip]
>>>In the USA, since neither Garter nor Lyons has any jurisdiction, arms
>>>may be assumed with impunity. Bryan Maloney Or.(At least for this week.)
>
>Barry Gabriel replied:
>>... Would you drive a car without a license?
>
>Yes, if I lived in a jurisdiction that didn't bother to issue licenses >or otherwise regulate drivers.

And where exactly would this country be?

>
>>The fact you can assume arms willy nilly in the U.S. is unfortunate.
>>You really should have an heraldic authority. Lyon and Garter do have
>>some jurisdiction in the U.S. The former with individuals of proven
>>Scottish descent on the male line, the latter with proven descent from >>a British subject. >B.G.
>
>Beg pardon?

You are forgiven :-)

>You might as well say that the US has "jurisdiction" in Canada
>because a Canadian can buy or inherit property in the US!!

Let's not go down that path...

>All that either Lyon or Garter can (or AFAIK ever have) claimed is >that, if an American should desire to display or use arms IN BRITAIN, >he should (in England) or must (in Scotland) observe the local laws or >rules or customs. American private citizens may (or may not) choose >to accord some moral deference to arms granted by LL & G (I would) but >if this meant accepting a claim of legal "jurisdiction" we'd dump the >letters patent in the harbor along with the tea. Neither LL or G has >AFAIK ever been so undiplomatic!

Read it again. I said *some* jurisdiction in the U.S., and that is true
insofar as Lyon and CoA can and DO grant to U.S. citizens, though the
latter is considered "honourary" (whatever that is).

Barry

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 22:16:47 +0000, Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<herald...@londwill.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <6edglb$a0_...@jack.sns.com>, "Michael F. McCartney"
><m...@sns.com> writes

>> It would be interesting, though, to see just how much of

>>Innes' pronouncements merely reflect long-standing legal precedent, and how
>>much is new.

>The point is irrelevant....the Lord Lyon is the sole source of heraldic
>and nobiliary law in the Kingdom of Scotland as the Crown's Deputy in
>such matters and and can make and unmake such law as he choses.

This response strikes me as a bit of a non sequitur. Regardless of
LL's standing in this matter, it would still be interesting to know
how much is new (and how new it is).

>> One can argue re: whether the new stuff is good, whether the
>>Crown is really watching & would approve, etc.; whereas the old precedent
>>(whether we personally like it or not) is at least not open to any serious
>>suggestion that various Lyons have slipped it past a long line of Kings and
>>ministers without their noticing!

>This really does conjure up a bizarre picture in my head! To be
>serious, in Scottish heraldic matters the Lord Lyon, like the Earl
>Marshal in England, *IS* the Crown - he has unfettered jurisdiction and
>is not subject to any form of controlment.

What would happen if he decided that conviction of a felony was a
requirement, or something equally bizarre? Assume further that in all
other respects he seemed perfectly sane. I grant that the hypothesis
is outlandish, but have you any idea what might happen in such a
situation? (Possibly the answer is simply that the idea is so bizarre
that no one can know unless something comparable actually occurs. I'd
accept that. But please don't simply say that the situation is
unthinkable or impossible.)

Brian M. Scott